User:Alm1096/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: (link): Anxiety dream
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because personally I deal with anxiety on a daily basis mostly social anxiety, and I honestly never knew that an anxiety dream was really something studied. To be able to learn something that pertains to me and maybe why as I read the article is why I chose this one.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead is the definition of an anxiety dream, what can trigger these and exactly how. The lead is a very good over. view of what an anxiety dream is and gives the reader knowledge on what exactly they will be reading about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: I don't think that the lead gives much information about the major sections of the article. Although the lead mentions some of the causes and themes of the dreams that's about it for sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No all of the information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: I believe that the lead is concise, it's only a couple sentences stating the main points of the article and cuts right to the chase.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes all of the information and views pertain to anxiety dreams, the whole article seems to stay on topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?: Yes there are a couple references that are from 2008 and 2010 which is pretty recent and the oldest information is from 1987 which for research isn't that old. The content is mainly from the last decade or so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I can't think of anything that is missing from the article other than some more elaboration on some subjects within the article. I think it all belongs and gives the reader a good understanding of an anxiety dream. I think adding pre-Freudians and then Freudians theory was a good addition to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No I don't believe so.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes the article is neutral, it shows different points of view from different resources as well as the freudian theory. These is no opinions included in the article from one singular person, sticks straight to the facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there isn't one position versus the next. Like said above it is a neutral point of view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The representation of the other dreams such as nightmares and night terrors may have been over represented but it was used in a good way to represent that anxiety dreams are their own category not just under the large umbrella of nightmares.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is an educational article stating facts about anxiety dreams, I don't think that it is being persuasive.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all the facts are back up by reliable secondary source of information. They use reliable scientists that have written books and magazine articles stating their findings on anxiety dreams.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: I think so, I have never done research on anxiety dreams but from reading the article I can see that they used many different resources and scientists facts to back up what they were stating in the article.
 * Are the sources current?: There are some older sources but some of them are new and current. A majority of them were published in the last decade.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Yes there are resources from seven different authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: I think the article has great structure, starting out with the background of the topic and moving on the freudian theory and then triggers, treatment, etc. It was very easy for me to read and follow. It was very to the point of what an anxiety dream was and past research on it, although maybe the author didn't need to talk about other dreams at the start as much. Other than that, I think it was very well written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't notice in my reading of the article any grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down into very concise sections that then go into depth about that. For example in the past I have done research and going to an article like this if I simply needed the treatment options you could find it very easily. The sections made sense where they were in chronological order as well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There seems to be only one comment on the talk page. This comment is giving the writers a suggestion to elaborate on one of the sections of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated a C-class, and 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 topic in class yet, I hope that wasn't expected.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Wikipedia rated the article a C on quality scale. The last time the article was edited was in May of 2020. Could use some work but overall in my opinion is well written and organized in a great way.
 * What are the article's strengths? The articles strengths are how well and concise it was written, and it covered all the general questions and background research someone would need to know about an anxiety dream.
 * How can the article be improved?: The article could go into a little more depth in some sections such as the effects section as the one comment on the talk page discussed. There is only two sentences on it and there could be so much more that readers would be interested in.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is slightly underdeveloped and could use some more work and some new additions in my opinion.

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: