User:Letterwritingstudent/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.

• Name of article: Judith A. Rubin
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen to evaluate this article, due in part to Wikipedia's suggestion to select on the basis of relation to the course that I am a student within ("History of Medicine through Art"). The expressive art therapies interrelate medical knowledge and creative practice in such a way that one becomes dependent on the other. I hope to explore this discipline in an inductive manner through reading an article about one of its clinicians, as well as through analytically identifying ways that her description could be improved.

Lead

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

In this article, the introductory sentence is characterized by brevity and clarity; I believe that it encompasses a broad range of key information about the subject, while keeping its presentation condense and easy to understand. The primary facts that this lead containa are the subject's name, birth year, nationality, profession, and temporal extent of professional experience. In contrast, the article's main sections are: 1) Life and Work, and 2) Films. These to headings do not correspond exactly with what is outlined in the lead (containing one sentence), as the introductory sentence does not refer to any involvement with films. However, each piece of information mentioned in the lead is discussed in further detail as you progress throughout the article.

Content

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

I do believe that the article's is entirely relevant to its subject of Judith A. Rubin, for it revolves around her profressional significance - her beginning in the visual arts, entry into children's educational environments, transition to therapetic practice, as well as her contributions to literature, academia, and film. The content is informed by references from the last 26 years (1994-2016), meaning that its sourced information has relative recency to it. I think that missing content includes further details about how she used artmaking as a buffering practice while grieving her childhood friend, as this appears to be her first vital experience with merging visual art and active psychological amelioration. A meaningful form of seed-planting for her future engagements with health and art seems to exist in this memory; it might've informed the very nature of her professional practices. Also, I think more information about her interpersonal relationships (specifically familial) could be helpful in understanding how her upbringing influenced the course of her life. There doesn't seem to be information that was included that does not belong - all of its inclusions appear to be articulating the biography in a focused, relevant manner. This article does address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps - the incidence of biographies for women. However, the field of contemporary art therpy is dominated by women, so a goal of increasing biographies about present-day male art therapists could be beneficial also.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone of the article emits an impression of neutrality - the editors do not present their personal value statements. Controversial claims do not seem to be present in the writing, as it focuses on pieces of information about her life, and less about external, tilted viewpoints of her experiences. The article primarily is drafted off a basis of Rubin's recollections, so I believe that this could prove to be contingent on her perceptions in many ways; although perceptions of one individual are informative (especially in the case of the subject herself), I believe that integrating a wider array of voices could reinforce the balance of the article. However, these external sources may not exist plentifully, so it might be important to wait to write this article once more sources emerge (such in an academic or clinical literature review, or a biography written by someone other than the subject). I think that the viewpoints of Judith and her academic and clinical collegues are more heavily weighted than those of her family or friends.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

No, not all facts in the article are reinforced by secondary sources. In the reference list, it appears as though the majority are sourced from books and articles written by Judith Rubin herself - which is against the pillars of Wikipedia (ensuring sources are reliable and independent). The sources appear thorough, in that scarce historical art therapy literature include extensive information on Rubin. The sources appear to be quite current - ranging from being published in 1994 to 2016. The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors - only three are included (Rubin, Malchiodi, Junge). However, all three are women, so historically marginalized individuals are referenced by this characteristic. The links redirect to the ISBN search wikipedia page and a PDF.

Organization

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

I have noticed that the writing is characterized by concision, relative simplicity, and provides suficient detail. However, I think that at some points the transitions could be more fluid. The grammar and spelling followed conventions. My perspective is that the "Life and Work" section is too broad, and it could be helpful to the reader to subdivide it further (chronologically or thematically). I thought it felt slightly awkward having the "Films" section be the only other division beyond the lead and the previosuly stated "Life and Work" (since her films were part of her work).

Images and Media

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

This article does not include any images, which could be a decision made in an attempt to avoid copyright violation. I believe that it would enhance comprehension to include at least one of the following (if in adherance with copright laws): a photographic portrait of Judith, a photograph of Judith in the art studio or healthcare setting, an image of her artwork, an image of one of her patient's artworks, or a still from one of her films.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

There are no conversations going on behind the scenes in the article's talk page - I hope that research on this subject can expand (maybe I will be able to contribute)! The article is rated as C-Class for all of the WikiProjects that it is a part of. These WikiProjects include "Biographies", "Visual Arts", "Women's History", and "Psychology". I suppose that our class has been presented with the profound visual, conceptual, and practical interplay between the arts and medicine, in a few different ways than this Wikipedia article discusses this topic. It does so, in the manner that the biography focuses on a specific professional application of the two disciplines merging, such as through her work with children who experience schizophrenia, and with art therapy for older adults (as discussed in the context of film she created). Most of the materials that we have read and watched so far for class, have not framed the merging of disciplines in a professional sense. Rather, the majority have exhibited the arts as extention of our everyday human expression - in the caves of Lascaux, or in examing the elements of visual communication.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

I will respond to each guiding question, when applicable, under the evaluation subheading.

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

The article's overall status is that it has “multiple issues” and is under-developed in completeness. Its strengths exist in its exploration of her professional life, detailed accounts of how her colleagues have influenced the path that she has taken, and providing nuances of her career development. Also, I believe that the tone is quite neutral and unbiased - given that a biography centers around a singular individual. Potential improvements that could be made to the article, include either finding more secondary sources about Rubin, or suspending the writing of the article until more secondary sources come into existence. It is critical for the sources to be both independent and reliable. Additionally, I think that it could be beneficial to have a further exploration of her personal approach to counseling and art therapy, as well as of her childhood and familial relationships.