User:Cosmic Hypernova/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?

Mesolimbic pathway

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because I'm interested in working on it for the semester. After looking at it, I noticed that it seems to lack some information and depth. It is short and does not provide enough details to give readers a well-rounded understanding of the topic. That's why I think it is a good choice for me to copyedit and add more sources and information to expand it. By doing so, I can improve the article and make it more detailed and thorough.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of the article provides a brief overview but lacks sufficient detail and substance. It does not offer comprehensive descriptions for all the major subjects, with most of them only briefly mentioned in one or two sentences. Also, there is a subsection discussing the mesolimbic pathway's relation to other neurological and psychological disorders, which is not mentioned in the lead section. I am unsure what I need to do but, I intend to incorporate this information into the lead section and provide more details and supporting sources in the relevant major section.

Although the article's content seems relevant to the title, it seems to have been lacking significant updates for some time. To ensure accuracy, I will review the sources and verify that the article reflects current and reliable information. While unsure of my specific contribution to the article, I believe it lacks relevant background information on motivation, learning, history, and disorders. Furthermore, there is little or no mention of research pertaining to animals or humans.

The article maintains a neutral tone, but there seems to be an imbalance when it comes to discussing the negative and positive implications and clinical significance. I will explore the positive aspects related to motivation and reward to fix this. The current representation seemingly overemphasizes how an unregulated pathway contributes to negative outcomes, while neglecting to highlight the functioning of a properly regulated system in humans.

The sources and references cited are predominantly from academic and peer-reviewed publications, many of which have been published within the last decade. These sources cover various aspects related to the topic, and I am personally interested in reviewing them, as I believe they contain information that can be incorporated into the article. While the authors appear diverse, I will consciously seek out authors from underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds during my research. A preliminary examination indicates that the provided links are active and functional.

The organization of the article is clear, with information presented in easily digestible sections. However, it needs copyediting to enhance clarity and flow. The current writing style leans more toward an essay format than an encyclopedia article. Although the article is divided into major points, important information is missing from the lead section, and additional sections need to be included for contextual understanding and significance.

The article includes one image and one chart. While the image is relevant to the topic, I find the relevance of the chart unclear, as it does not directly relate to dopamine or the mesolimbic pathway. I will attempt to find a more suitable illustration for the section and consider relocating it to a visually appealing spot that does not disrupt the flow of information. If an appropriate alternative cannot be found, I will consider removing it.

The talk page contains limited information, with some individuals asking questions or offering suggestions, with minimal understanding of the subject matter. One person raised the possibility of merging this article with the reward system article, and the response suggested that the merge could be considered if deemed necessary. Additionally, some users expressed interest in adding definitions or etymology. Overall, this feedback provides valuable insights for improving the article. The article is associated with three WikiProjects: neuroscience, medicine/neurology, and pharmacology, and is rated C-class, Mid-importance, C-class, Low-importance, and C-class, Low-importance respectively.

My overall impression of the article is positive. It has as a solid foundation, but it lacks necessary information and requires copyediting. Supplementing it with additional details and background information will enhance its comprehensiveness. While the article contains a considerable number of resources, I believe they have not been effectively utilized to convey the information within them, resulting in a lack of cohesion. Therefore, I consider the article to be underdeveloped and believe that incorporating additional information will address this issue.