User:Knshaffer98/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it introduces the name of the discipline and where it is practiced.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does a good job introducing the topic but not the subsections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a bit overly detailed.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? It is relevant to the topic, but not what you would expect when searching the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Not really, the last edit was in 2019 and the sources are out of date for medical research.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article is missing key information about what exactly clinical physiology is used for, but doesn't contain irrelevant information.

Is the article neutral? Yes, it only states unbiased facts.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No obvious biases.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are many links to internal sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.
Are the sources current? No.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could be more concise and clear.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some minor grammatical errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, a lot of information in the lead would have been better suited in a subsection.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images were included in the article.
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page is undersourced.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The page is not rated.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we talked about how caffeine affects the body, which related to clinical physiology's study of the body.

What is the article's overall status? It's not a very large article. Perhaps not much research has been done on the topic, or there is more that could be added to the article.
What are the article's strengths? It gives historical background on the discipline as well as a definition.
How can the article be improved? It needs more sources and information.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that it is underdeveloped and could use more external sources.

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 — ~~~~