User:Medstud15/Evaluate an Article

[[User:Medstud15/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?

Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#cite note-Curatolo 2010-15

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it is a topic of relevance to me. It matters because it is an increasingly prevalent condition, and yet, there is still a lot of conflicting/unclear information on it found online. My preliminary impression of this article is that a lot of the cited sources are outdated (not published within the past 5 years), the grammar can be improved (there are some confusing sentences), and overall more information can be included on this topic.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Overall, the lead section is well written and provides a good, brief overview of the topic, but it can be improved in providing better descriptions/introductions to the article's major sections.

The content of the article needs improvement, starting with using updated sources. A majority of the cited sources were not published within the past 5 years, and there are references within the article to the DSM-IV, when the most current version now is the DSM-5-TR. Additionally, the content of the article can be enhanced to not only include more recent information but also newer information that has been researched on this topic. Furthermore, the content can be enhanced to address this topic within the context of historically underrepresented populations.

Overall, the tone and balance of this article are good. It reads in a neutral tone without any evidence of bias toward any particular viewpoint.

As previously mentioned, a majority of the sources and references are outdated, and therefore, newer references should be found and used to better represent the current knowledge on this topic and improve this article.

At first glance, this article is well organized, but the quality of the writing needs improvement. There are portions where the writing structure is unclear and difficult to understand, and there are a handful of grammatical errors.

There do not appear to be any ongoing conversations on the Talk page of this article, although it is of interest to many WikiProjects.

My overall impression of the article is that it can be improved with more current sources. One of its strengths is that the current information provided, albeit outdated, is factual and generally properly cited. I think that as it stands, given the more recent publications on this topic, this article is underdeveloped, and some of its sections can be enhanced.