User:CKBarch/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: Anxiety Dream (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_dream&oldid=955500352)
 * Psychology is a subject I find very interesting it is underrepresented on Wikipedia. I came across WikiProject Psychology, which is an ongoing collaborative effort to expand the collection of psychology articles on Wikipedia. I was curious what was already available, and as I was looking around in that section, I found this article to be of interest.

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, but it does not concisely describe the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not in the lead paragraph, but it does have a TOC.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? It appears to be, but would be difficult to be sure without further research. The sources seem a bit outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm not sure the 'In Literature' section is necessary or relevant - it seems excessive.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, Psychology in general is underrepresented, and I think this is the anxiety dream is a topic the public is likely interested in.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. In fact, the section titled 'Supposed Origin' should just be 'Origin' backed up with sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Ernest Jones, author of On The Nightmare, is referred to in the 'Classification and provenance' section, but is not included in the sources.
 * Are the sources current? No, no sources written less than ten years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there seems to be some diversity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No it is wordy and a bit of a difficult read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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? One person said it could be improved by adding more details to the section on the effects of anxiety dreams on the psyche. No other feedback has been given.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C article 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? N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is published, but needs work as a C rated article
 * What are the article's strengths? It fills a gap and is an interesting article with lots of information.
 * How can the article be improved? It could be improved by making it more concise and the points clearer and easier to read. It also needs the sources cited.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article's information is well-developed, but it needs some clean-up in clarity, cohesiveness and sourcing.

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: