User:Caresedavis/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_mental_health&action=edit

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate for a few reasons. The first and foremost reason was because it's a topic that peaks my interest, as it encompasses goals surrounding the use of AI to improve mental health. With mental health being a growing issue in the world, resources to counter such difficulties can be in short supply. Finding a way to optimize AI with hopes of supporting mental health could be powerful because of it's vast capacity, yet there is not much discussion surrounding how to go about doing so. Secondly when reviewing the article, there was a disclaimer at the top, stating that "the article has multiple issues" and calling on Wikipedia writers to help improve it. Despite strong writing, a lot of the information has not been updated and is written in the wrong tone (it's a bit more argumentative). I'd like to work on these issues as a part of our WikiProject.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is lacking in a few areas. There is an introductory sentence that describes what artificial intelligence in mental health exactly refers to which is brief and straight to the point, but a brief description of the article's major sections is missing. The lead could be a bit longer because it is currently only one sentence. I think this can be confusing for the readers, as they may not understand where the direction of the article is headed. Lastly, the lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic, however this content is not up-to-date. Another Wikipedia editor mentioned the updates they made back in October of 2023 and what they feel the article still needs. This includes needed "work on the lead, benefits, and drawbacks of the use of technology in mental health and a whole section on ethical issues". After looking through the piece, I strongly agree with everything said. There is missing content, but not necessarily content that does not belong, other than some necessary alterations to language and framing. There does seem to be an equity gap, as there are little to no mentioning on historically underrepresented populations which every piece can benefit from having.

Tone and Balance

The tone is arguably one of the largest shortcomings of this article due to it's argumentative town. At times, it appears that the piece is trying to persuade the reader into a specific credence, or there personal opinion seems to shine through rather than being solely informative. There does not seem to be an overrepresented areas, though there should be inclusion of the ways in which different groups engage with AI meaning both the general population and underrepresent groups.

Sources and References

The article has a solid amount of secondary sources that back up the information, and these sources seem to give in-depth overview of the content. There is a variety of authors, though there is brief mentioning of marginalized groups of people within the writing. The sources also are not current. The majority were published before 2022, especially around 2019. After doing a bit of research, I found a few sources that would be good inclusions to the piece and are more up to date. There has been an increase in available information since that last time this was updated. The links function as well.

Organization and Writing Quality

Overall, I would say that this article is well-written. There is clarity and it flows well, however there are still necessary changes that would make it more valid to serve as a Wikipedia article. We know that the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform, not to convey beliefs or opinions, and I see room improvement in that category. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors, though there are a few areas that could be changed to make it palatable for all readers. The article is also broken down well, but I want to hopefully add a few more subject areas.

Images and Media

There are no images in this article which is an aspect that I can look into incorporating during the edit. That might be difficult considering the guidelines images must adhere to and this still being a relatively new topic of discussion.

Talk Page Discussion

Like mentioned earlier, this article's talk page mentions the most recent edits, along with recommendations for the next editor. Other than such, there has not been any other discussion. The is a C-class rated article and is of interest to the Health and Fitness WikiProject. The main way this article differs from the way we have discussed in class is the tone which was touched on in the Tone and Balance section of this evaluation.

Overall Impressions

This article has a solid framework that I can work with. There are a few areas that I look forward to working on to improve the overall fluidity and clarity of the article. The strengths of the article include organization and valid content. Some areas to work on encompass updating sources, the lead, adding new categories, and tone. I would describe the article's current state as slightly underdeveloped, though it's on its way to becoming well-developed with the help of Wikipedia editors.