User:Psychĕblooms/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?

Management of post-traumatic stress disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because managing PTSD is a topic I'm very passionate about. There are so many different techniques and approaches for treating PTSD, and I believe it's important to explore and understand them. This topic matters to me because PTSD can make a person feel like their living in a constant state of panic, and no one should have to live like that. Making sure that accurate and reliable information is available to everyone is crucial for helping improve their daily lives. My first impression of the article was that while it was very detailed in certain sections, others had much less information. This lack of balance shows there's some need for improvement.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The lead section is clear and concise, and the first sentence gives a good quick definition of the article's topic. It gives a brief overview of the article's information, but doesn't go into too much detail.

Content and Sources:

The biggest issue with this article is how uneven the content is. Some sections like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are covered more fully in-depth, while others like antipsychotic medication barely have any content. There are also sections that feel out of place. For example, the Benzodiazepines section does not need to be there because all it talks about is how they're not recommended for PTSD patients. That space could be better used for treatments that are useful. Also, the section on Topiramate doesn't need to be there because it has no sources to be back up it's relation to PTSD.

There are also some parts that make claims that aren't backed up by sources. For example the section on Psychedelic assisted psychotherapy made this statement: "The advantage of using psychedelic drugs is that many of these drugs are not physically addictive, unlike drugs like nicotine." There is no source stated after to back this claim, so it can be biased. There was also a statement in the Nepicastat section that claimed "Given that nepicastat treatment has been proven to be effective in reducing signs in PTSD mice model with elevated catecholamine levels,[166] it could be a promising treatment option for humans with PTSD characterized by increased catecholamine plasma levels." They didn't cite any sources for human trials just mice trials, which is a misleading source.

Also, several sources are outdated or no longer work. For example, the sources on cannabis use are from 2017 and don't reflect the current medical laws across the states. Some PDFs and links don't work in the Reference section as well. This can hurt the reliability of the article.

Organization and Structure:

The writing is pretty clear, but there are some grammatical errors to be made. The organization needs to be better as well because the treatments are listed all together without a proper strong structure. A more helpful layout would be to group similar treatments together. For example:

- Sections like MDMA, Psilocybin, and Ketamine could be under Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy

- Sections like antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, topiramate, prazosin, stellate ganglion block, and sotalol should be under a Psychiatric Medications section

This would make the articl easier to read and would show how the treatments are related or distinct from each other.

Images and Media:

The images follow Wikipedia's rules and are captioned properly. One of the images adds value by helping explain the topic, but the other one doesn't really do much.

Talk Page:

The talk page shows that people are very invested in the topic, but that means there are strong opinions about what information should or shouldn't be included. It's clear people care about accuracy and making sure Wikipedia users are being equipped with all the proper knowledge and are figuring out the best way to go about it. Therefore, there's some tension in the discussion, and some comments come off as harsh and direct. Still, it shows that the article is being actively reviewed which is a good thing.

Final Thoughts:

Overall, this article has potential, but it needs a lot of cleanup and reorganization. Its strengths are the topic itself and the multiple treatments it's trying to cover, but it also has uneven details, outdated or minimal sources, and confusing structure. With more up-to-date research, better section organization, and a more balanced structure, this article could become a really valuable resource for people with PTSD.