User:Mashpotatomagic/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?

LGBTQ psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because the LGBTQ+ community is an important topic to both me personally and to my studies. As a future therapist, I want to dedicate my services towards helping the women and the LGBTQ+ community. This is a community that greatly suffers from societal obstacles and discrimination. With the main focus of my future endeavors being the betterment of the community; it's important that others have the resources to learn as well. Wikipedia is a great and easily accessible resource and the more information available, the better. My first impression of this article is that it's very well written, gives great details, and examples. It does a good job at laying out key information for understanding the topic.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The introduction sentence was a good summary of the topic. The rest of the paragraph is neutral and concise as well. I could say that this section gives a brief summation of the subtopics within the article but not in blatant detail. This summary is more of synapsis of this specific field instead of a summarized tale of context.

Content: All of the article's content is relevant to the topic. The history section could be improved by adding some details regarding the ways in which psychology played a role in the perception of the LGBTQ+ community. overall, the information in this article is up to date. I do think that adding a section regarding the history between the transgender community and the field of psychology would be helpful. Therapists and other mental health professionals play a huge role in the process of transitioning.

Tone and Balance: The tone was neutral and fairly balanced. The history and treatment section could be further expanded.

Sources and References: While the sources are thorough and well detailed in regards to the topic, there are some facts that could use an additional citation. I'm sure that the sections of concern are cited further into the later paragraphs. Without the direct citation, however, it makes the fact look uncited. The links provided work.

Organization: The article is well written and easy to read. The sections are also well organized without any noticeable spelling and/or grammatical errors.

Images and Media: This article had some good photos but half of them are not captioned. Having some more photos would help with understanding the topic.

Talk page discussion: There are no current discussions in this article's talk page and it is rated start-class. This article discusses this topic a bit differently than both my psychology courses and my Gender and Women's studies courses. This is mostly because the two topics were not often mixed. The course work often references one another but not in serious detail.

Overall impressions: The article is well written and concise. It's a great source towards understanding both the community and the psychology surrounding them.