User:M.DuranUCSF/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Clinical physiology
- I chose this article because I studied physiology in undergrad and I am interested to see what other career paths I could have taken would I not have picked pharmacy.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead does not include an introductory sentence, nor a description of the major sections. The information presented is concise and does not include a lot of extra information not needed.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content of the article is relevant, but there could have been more sections in the article like how one get become a clinical physiologist etc. The last update was done in 2019, but things might have changed since then since the medical field is constantly changing. I would have been more interested in reading more about what I need to do in order to chose a career in clinical physiology.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article shows a neutral point of view. I am not finding any specific claims that seem biased. No persuading is noticed.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Not all facts are backed up by sources, so more citation needs to be done. When I clicked on a source, the website tells me "Page Not Found". Better references need to be added.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is easy to read and little grammar errors are found. It could have been organized better, with "history" coming before "role".
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]No images are included in the article.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]The talk page includes questions about where the editor got the information form, due to lack of references. The article has been part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in 2019.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved?
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article needs improvement. There are very few sections and little references. The strengths of the article is that it is easy to read. The article seem to be underdeveloped due to lack of information.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: Talk:Clinical physiology#Edits