User:Alyssadebragga/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?

Identity disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I've chosen to evaluate this article as it appears to be a super short stub of a topic that could be talked quite a bit about. It's a super interesting topic and I think there is a lot of room for additional research to be done and added to the page. The page was last edited almost a year ago and this allows for many more new sources to be utilized.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The article has an introductory sentence, but it is quick to veering from the purpose of the article. There is no brief description of what follows in the article/sections. The lead is not very concise. Lead sentence jumps around.

Content: The article's content is not very up to date, it was last edited July of 2023. There is plenty content missing. It's covering a very vast topic in around a hundred words.

Tone and balance: The article does take a mostly neutral tone.I'm not seeing anything under or overrepresented. There is no persuasion occurring, but there is a big lack of content.

Sources and references: Sources are not current. Most current source is from 2014. I've identified peer reviewed articles that could be used for further editing to the article. Links do work, but more recent sources are available for addition to the article.

Organization and writing quality: The article is clear, but lacking depth and motive. It's a single, brief paragraph. I noticed a minor grammatical error. The article is not broken down into sections as it's very short.

Images and media: There are no images included in the article. There are no exact images I can think of immediately that would be fitting for this topic, but certainly I could find images to boost the article quality.

Talk page discussion: The talk page for this article is empty. It's of low-importance interest to the Medicine WikiProject. I do believe with proper research it can become of higher interest to the Medicine WikiProject.I'm not seeing a rating for this article otherwise.

Overall impression: Overall, this is a very short, vague article covering identity disorders. For how common an occurrence identity disorders are nowadays, I believe this article has a lot of room for improvement and therefore is my number one prospect at this time. I'm unable to confidently identify strengths of this article. The article can be lengthened, broken down into many sections, cover more current research/peer-reviewed articles, and have talk page conversation going regarding it's further improvement. This is an underdeveloped article.