User:Abinnquist/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Cognitive Polyphasia
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I had never heard this term before but found it to be interesting. Once I looked over the page I realized I had a good understanding of the phenomenon but never had known the name for it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise. However, I feel the way in which the phenomenon occurs could be explained in a more simple way for others to understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead has an somewhat good introductory sentence but the rest is a bit convoluted and doesn't set the reader up well for what else will be covered in the article. Though it refers to the one section in the article it isn't exactly clear or easy to understand.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? To an extent it does contain information not in the rest of the article as part of the idea in the lead is not fully expounded upon.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise but uses too much jargon for an average reader to fully comprehend. In addition, the wording is too complex and would need to be either simplified or explained.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No there are many peer reviewed journal articles on the subject that could help support this page and clarify the idea.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content in the article does belong, however there is a large amount of missing information that could more robustly explain the phenomenon.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes the article does a good job of stating the idea in a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there does not seem to be a bias in describing the phenomenon.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It is possible, since there are so few references, that the article relies to heavily on one two two primary researchers. The article cites one researcher 3 time out of 6 sources and another lead researcher 2 times out of 6 making up the majority of sources.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in way or another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It looks as the almost every single fact has been backed up by a source except the Greek root of the words.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No there is much more literature on this topic by a wider range of experts. Additionally, there is more up to date literature by the sources that are cited.
 * Are the sources current? No there is more current work from 2012 to 2019 that covers the topic in depth.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work but there is only one link attached to the six sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article could be considered concise but it is neither clear nor easy for the average person to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I found there is an incorrect use of pluralization.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No there is only one section the covers the topic in detail and that section could easily be broken down and expounded upon.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No there are no images on the page.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No one has posted anything on the talk page or on personal talk pages for those that have edited.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as "stub-class" on the quality scale but has yet to be rated on the importance scale. It is part of the Wikiproject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not talked about this subject in class, but in previous classes that have talked about the subject this article is severely lacking in defining the subject well.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Stub-class.
 * What are the article's strengths? It does get the phenomenon correct, albeit not very clearly.
 * How can the article be improved? The article would need more sources, more breakdown of the subject and better sentence structure and language choice.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is extremely underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Cognitive polyphasia