User:Malmims/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

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

Sources and References

A 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.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

"Talk: Anxiety Disorder"

Talk:Anxiety disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because anxiety disorders are a topic of interest to me and something I enjoy learning more about. I feel like this subject is more relevant than ever today as youth are fighting for mental health transparency and being open and honest about mental health disorders such as common ones like anxiety disorders. As someone who has struggled with anxiety my whole life, learning about it has helped me better understand what I am going through and healthy ways to cope. Additionally, as a future psychologist this will probably be a common disorder I see in my patients. My first honest impression of it (assuming I did this assignment correctly) is that it reads more like a blog than a wikipedia article.

Evaluate the article

I think plenty of the information given in this article is relevant, interesting, and coming from a well-educated place. However, a lot of it is original research and written from a very specific first person's point of view which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. I think the author of this article (IS IT ONE OR MULTIPLE?) is passionate about the subject and could write some fascinating independent work on the topic, but would have a lot of revising to do on the work as is for it to be appropriate for Wikipedia. They need more sources and to cut out the personal stories and original research and knowledge. I feel as if the article is developed well for something besides Wikipedia but needs further development. This could be done through research and use of more sources and information. I found this article through c- class articles, where I observed other wiki users put their own thoughts and opinions down to help figure out what could be done to make this article flow more cohesively. I think that this article is written well but lacks professionalism. I would not turn a formal paper in at school written in the same manner as this article, lone (?) less try to publish a wikipedia article as informal as this one is. As I previously stated, this article is not written from a neutral point of view, but it also lacks representation and struggles with putting too much information about one single thing and lacks necessary expansion and detailed sections to explain more about the topic at hand. I feel like after reading this article I learned something, but not necessarily about anxiety disorders. The information provided is not extremely outdated, which is a positive. Likewise, the few sources provided seem to be legitimate and work when you click the links. The people who have reviewed the article seem to have many of the same opinions as me about the content and structure of this article, and were helpful in trying to point out some of the things that need to be fixed. Overall, I feel as if this article has a solid foundation but needs some major editing and expansion, as well as a new voice.