User:CliniGuide/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 have an interest in Anesthesia. I think I can make a difference.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article presents relevant and up-to-date information; however, it is somewhat wordy and could be more concise for improved readability. While the content is generally accessible, it may benefit from clearer language to ensure comprehension by a broader audience. Additionally, the article could be strengthened by including key considerations for anesthesia providers, such as the timing of a patient’s last dose of GLP-1 inhibitors or anticoagulants, which are critical factors in perioperative management.
Equity gaps are not addressed, though the brevity of the article limits its capacity to explore such issues in depth. No significant bias or non-neutral tone is detected. As a stub-class article, there is little basis to evaluate whether particular viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
A major concern is the reliability of the sources, as the majority of citation links are non-functional. While the author appears to have made an effort to include a diverse range of sources, the lack of accessible references weakens the article’s credibility. Furthermore, the talk page remains empty, indicating a lack of discussion or collaborative input.
The article is classified as a stub with mid-level importance and falls under the scope of the Medicine WikiProject. In our class discussions, we emphasized the importance of presenting information in a clear and easily digestible manner. This article, however, could be improved in terms of readability and clarity to better serve the general public.
~~~~