User:BioNarrator/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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I've chosen "Clinical physiology" because I was interested in how the user was presenting data from such a large field. Clinical physiology is a vast field and there can be multiple approaches to writing about it. As I begin my wikipedia training, I felt it would benefit me to read and evaluate an article that was relevant to my career choices. In doing so, I learned more about clinical physiology as both how I can approach writing my own articles and the field I plan on going into.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article is relevant to the topic, and the tone is neutral. However, the user could benefit from adding current or more recent sources as they the sources they have listed are from 1990s-2009. Possibly would like to see a section that includes the advancement of the field and current research and relevance. Overall, I felt the article to be succinct and a quick overview of such a large topic.