User:Russiandumpling/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Dissociative identity disorder
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I found learning about DID in my abnormal psychology class fascinating, and I’m aware of the ongoing controversies surrounding its validity. At first glance, the article appears to address some of these debates.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]- Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes, the first sentence introduces DID concisely and summarizing its key characteristics.
- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
The lead provides a broad overview of symptoms, causes, controversy, diagnosis, and treatment but does not explicitly outline the major sections.
- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
No, everything in the lead is expanded upon in the body of the article.
- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is fairly long, but given the complexity and controversy surrounding DID, the level of detail is justified.
Content
[edit]- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes, the article covers concepts such as symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, which are relevant to the topic of the article.
- Is the content up-to-date?
Yes, it seems to be up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
It would have been beneficial to included cultural and historical perspective such as how DID is perceived differently across cultures.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
The article touches on the gendered aspects of DID but could include more perspective of underrepresented communities, such as how DID is diagnosed and treated in non-Western societies.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Is the article neutral?
Mostly, though the "Controversy" section leans toward skepticism, possibly giving more weight to critics than to supporters.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No, no claims appear to be heavily biased.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The controversy around iatrogenic DID vs. trauma-based DID is presented, but the article could do better at clarifying which viewpoints are more widely accepted in scientific literature.
- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Yes, I think they are accurately described.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Perhaps, the article steers towards the opinion that DID does not exist.
Sources and References
[edit]- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Most are, but some older sources (pre-2000s) should be updated.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
The article cites peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, and DSM-5, but could benefit from more recent studies.
- Are the sources current?
Some older sources (e.g., from the 1990s) should be replaced with newer research on DID diagnosis and treatment.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
The sources mostly come from Western psychology and psychiatry; it would be valuable to include perspectives from non-Western scholars.
- 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.)
There are newer sources that could be useful.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes, it is clear and readable, though some sections are densely packed with information.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
No, it appear to have no errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
The major sections (Symptoms, Diagnosis, Causes, Controversy, etc.) make sense, but some subsections (e.g., history) could be better structured.
Images and Media
[edit]- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Yes, it includes a brain scan image.
- Are images well-captioned?
Yes, but some of them could use more details.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
I think so.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Yes.
Talk page discussion
[edit]- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
Ongoing debates about the validity of DID, neutrality, and recent sources. Some disputes over the "Controversy" section and whether it is too skeptical.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
t is a "B-Class" article and part of multiple WikiProjects (Psychology, Medicine, and Psychiatry).
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Wikipedia leans more toward the skeptical, scientific controversy side, while my psychology course presented DID as a legitimate diagnosis with empirical support.
Overall impressions
[edit]- What is the article's overall status?
I think it is well-developed.
- What are the article's strengths?
It covers covers key aspects of DID (symptoms, diagnosis, history, controversy).
- How can the article be improved?
Balance the "Controversy" section to avoid overemphasizing skepticism. Update sources to include more recent studies.Expand cultural perspectives on DID diagnosis.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Moderately complete, but still lacking some key perspectives (e.g., cultural, gender-based, and recent research).