User:Benjamsredcob/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose an article on psychiatry because of the related focus that it has on a topic on mental health that I'll be doing for a different project. This also matters to me because of the recent talks of psychology in class, and that this may be something I pursue in the future. This article matters because the practice as a whole aims to relieve people of the mental stresses plaguing them. It matters to me because this may be something I want to learn for the future and it's of general interest to me. My preliminary impressions is that it's an article that talks about what it is and what the practice is suppose to do. This article branches off and has links to other subcategories of trainings required in the field of psychiatry.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

In the psychiatry article, there is an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic and defines it. The major sections and subsections of the article are defined in the lead. The lead includes information that is all present in the article. There are no "outlier" sections in the lead. The lead is concise and contains details related to the article. It is not overly detailed and gets to the point.

I liked the content of the article and it is all relevant to the topic. All of the content shown is up-to-date. All of the references and citations are very recent. All of the content that is present belongs in the article. There are no equity gaps with this wikipedia article. I cannot tell if it addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

This article remains at a neutral point of view. There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. If there are fringe or minority viewpoints, they are described as such. The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a position as it remains neutral in talking about the information. Even though I'm not sure if the article is backed up by secondary information just by looking at it, there are a lot of citations and references for the information given.

The sources given reflect what is available in the article. The sources are current and recent for the article shown. The sources given are written by a wide variety of authors. The sources include marginalized individuals where it's possible. Sources like Snopes and Cnn may have better information related to this article The links seem to work and direct me to their websites or intended place of reference for the info.

The article may contain some words that early readers may not understand, but the info is concise and gets to the point of the topic. The article doesn't have grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized in that the sections are broken down and reflect the major points of the topic.

The article contains a few images to help with the understanding of the topic. All of the images shown in the article are well-captioned. The images shown adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images shown are not laid out in the most visually appealing way. There are a few of them spread around the article.

I don't know of any conversations that are going behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. The article is rated as a B article with mostly mid-importance grades. There is one top-importance grade and the article is apart of some WikiProjects. The wording of the article may be different in that it contains words that not all readers can understand.

It seems like the article is still being edited and up-to-date The article contains a lot of information regarding psychiatry. It could be a good way to start someone off with the knowledge of psychiatry. The article can be improved by changing some of the verbiage or wordings to make it easier to be understood by a younger audience. For example "polymath" could be replaced by "well-educated" for an easier understanding. There is a section in the article that states that there may need to be an expansion due a lack of information at the moment in the "treatment" section. There is also the "inpatient treatment" section that states that there may need to be more citations for verification. Other than that, it seems complete in what it is trying accomplish. Benjamsredcob (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)