User:Azbeartx/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]This is the article I have chosen to evaluate and improve over the coming weeks. I have chosen to review it here so that I may systematically evaluate the quality of the article and determine where improvements can be made.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead- The lead is relatively concise and accurately summarizes the key aspects of the topic. The main issue with the lead is that in its present form, it does not include a description of the articles major sections.
Content- The content of the article is relatively sparse. Although the information is factually correct, there are major gaps that should be addressed. Specifically, information regarding the history of the product's development, medical uses, methods for placement, and topics of current research should be added.
Tone- the tone of the article is informal and not consistent with an academic article. The tone needs to be changed to reflect the nature of the work.
Sources- The sources cited for the article are sparse considering this procedure has been a major topic of trauma research for several years. Additionally, of the four articles cited, one is on an animal model and one is a case report. There are a plethora of more robust reviews that can, and should, be cited.
Organization- the organization of the article is adequate but will be changed once additional information is added.
Images- there are no images currently though this will be changed in the coming weeks.
Talk- there is no current discussion on the page.
Overall impression- The article is sparse but provides opportunity to make significant improvements on a topic that is very prominent in modern medical practice.