User:2000christina/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dissociative identity disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I found the topic to be interesting since there is some mixed information on the disorder. It also has multiple names and unique symptoms in the personality states. Additionally, it has genetic causes and causes due to childhood trauma, which is known to impact epigenetics. It matters because of the implications it holds for people with the condition. There are also legal/criminal implications relating to it and has been portrayed accurately and inaccurately in the media. My preliminary impression of the article was that it included a lot of information, but certain portions of it seemed somewhat lacking in depth.

Evaluate the article
The lead sentence of this article is successful in concisely defining the condition that is discussed throughout. However, the lead does not give a full idea of all of the different sections listed in the content section. It does not include any information that is not discussed in the article. Overall, the lead is concise, but I think that the sentence listing out all of the other conditions that occur in people with DID was lengthy and somewhat unnecessary for this section.

The content is relevant to DID and is accurate. There is new information on genetics and physiology behind DID that is not included in this though. It does a good job of recognizing the stigma that exists for people with this disorder. It also acknowledges the rights movement relating to neurodiversity and DID which is important to this topic.

The article is unbiased and does not attempt to sway the reader one way or the other. It is based on educating people to allow them to make judgments for themselves.

The sources are complete and the links work for them. They are very thorough in including scholarly citations which helps to establish the credibility of the article. The facts are backed up by academic papers.

The paper is well-written and broken down into understandable sections although I think it could emphasize more of the science behind the disorder as opposed to being mostly about its other aspects.

The images included have good captions, however, I think adding more images may be beneficial for the reader since there is a lot of text. The way the two images are laid out is not the best way they could be. It makes the text slightly hard to read.

There are some complaints on the talk page for this article about one of the sources used not being a primary source. people also mentioned that a lot of the sources are not about DID and that they felt that the author was trying to force a desired narrative rather than citing medical sources. Additionally, someone mentioned one of the sources as promoting conspiracy theories. There is a lot of controversy in this section and argument about "edit warring."

The overall status of the article was given a B rating, however, after reading the talk section I am not as sure to the accuracy of some of the information as well as the possibility of bias/narrative. There were also misused tags. Because of this, there are places I think that could be easily improved and expanded. The page overall needs more scientific literature sources that offer accurate, detailed, medical information.