User:Stautges/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]As someone who will be going into anethesiology, i will be using many of the anesthetics mentioned in the linked article daily. I think there is room for expansion of the discussion of the agents as well as opportunities to provide more sources in those sections.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section is well sourced and provides a moderate overview of the topic to be covered.
The local anesthetic section has a relatively long and informative discussion about local anethetics, though lacks sources to back most of it up. Additionally, in comparison to the rest of the article it does not have the agents in an easily-viewable list.
The general anesthetics section is visually appealing, and the inhaled anesthetics subsection is very informative and provides some of the history of these anesthetics. However, this section once again feels like it lacks some sources. The IV subsection again has some good information, but it feels like the paragraph should be separated out more (e.g. discuss benzodiazapines and barbiturates and then start a new paragraph).
The inclusion of IV opioid analgesic agents is valuable, and the variable anesthetic effects of them are mentioned. This and the heading on muscle relaxants feel like appropriate adjuvant treatments to anesthetics to be included in this article. That being said, it feels a little odd that only Muscle relaxants has an Adverse Effects subheading and none of the other sections do. Finally, the last paragraph about anesthesia awareness provides a lot of frightening but necessary information, but provides it without any sources.