User:Aroub Jamal/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) Postpartum depression
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: it relates to my current research topic and family history

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article starts with great background information on the topic that is straight forward and related to the reading. The writer talks about the problem, symptoms, and other disease-related to depression. The lead contains four short paragraphs that include information about the topic and what the rest of the reading will contain. There are parts of the lead that are a bit heavy on information such as stating stats and percentages.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

All the information that is included throughout the article is relevant to the topic. I did not read anything and questioned it. The article was recently edited and I noticed that most of the citations throughout the paper are from the last 5 years. If I would question if the data up to date I would look into the percentages that all included. Such as 1-26% of males also experience depression due to mood changes. I would see if those conditions have changed due to the recent pandemic with fathers staying home more often then before. I did not notice any gaps throughout the article.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Yes, while reading the article I did see any bias statements or feel like the information came from one person point of view. The article was based on starts and research. I would have liked to see more information on how postpartum depression affects fathers, little information was mentioned. I also thought that the part on the prevention of postpartum depression was summarized. I would have liked more information to really deliver the message about how to prevent such a disease. No, the article is research-based so I did not see any one-sided options.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are many sources listed in this article that included research articles and journals. I saw many reliable sources such as peer-reviewed articles and articles posted in good journals. scanning through the sources I though the topics all match the topic being discussed and researched. Yes, as I mentioned above most of the sources are from the last couple of years which I through was intreating because the topic of postpartum depression has been researched for decades. I did notice that there was one source that was in red and indicated that information was missing. I did click on some of the links and I was directed to the articles/journals.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article is an easy read which is not always a good thing. I actually think that better/stronger terminology could be used to strengthen the article. No grammar mistakes were found on my end (my grammar is bad) but I did notice on the edit page that many people have fixed spelling mistakes. One thing for certain I liked the set up of the article how it was decided into sections such as effects, causes, prevention, etc.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article contains ZERO images which I found strange. Typically for a Wikipedia page, lots go pictures, graphs, and tables are included to support the article. I would have liked to see some of the stats in figures to help understand the research.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

In the talk page on the article, there are a few comments. I think that a class might have been working not on the article because there are some reviews and comments that indicate that. I also noticed that some chats included corrections that people have made or wanted to be added to the article. I think that this article was a great example of how Wikipedia reviews are done. I first had noticed how people chat on the talk page and add their comments. I also saw how edits are made to improve the paper such as spelling mistakes. The article is part of three WikiProjects and it does mention that in 2011 it was nominated to be a "Social sciences and society good articles" however, it failed. No other submissions have been made for a renomination. Many edits have been made to the article so maybe now it might pass the requirements.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

I think that the article is a great place to start learning about the topic of postpartum depression. The citations are also reliable and could be used to further look at the research that was done. Like I have mentioned above there are no pictures in the article so the addition of that would make the article stronger and more visual. one was to improve the article is by improving the terminology to better represent the research. I would review the percentages and stats that are included throughout the article to see if anything has changed. I would also like to include data about if mothers have depression later in life after the child grows up and if correlates to the postpartum depression.


 * 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?

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:Postpartum depression