User:Cat.R.Leo/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: Talk:Auditory hallucination
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I found the topic to be fascinating and something that I wanted to learn more about. I think that they are a fascinating psychological topic that I can look at.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

There is a good introductory sentence that describes and defines auditory hallucinations.

It does touch on all of the sections in a light way that could do with being made more specific.

There is some information that is touched on in the intro that is not revisited when they go on to the full article

It is overly detailed and that should probably be cut down a bit.


 * 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

The content seems to be mostly on topic and relevant to the topic. There are a few moments that could be more defined and some that are not entirely relevant, including the history section. There is no need to mention a good amount of what is in the history, especially the ancient history section.

The last edit on the page was 12 September 2019, and the most recent published article cited was from 2018.

I honestly do not believe that some of the ancient history information is relevant but I do not yet want to make that call.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article does appear to be neutral as it does not seem to be doing anything other than explaining the topic and what it is.

There are some claims that slightly biased in the history section, there is also the notable cases section and how it highlights certain people who have had this disorder. While there is nothing particularly bad about that it is not very relevant.

The viewpoints represented are all just introducing the topic it does not seem to be giving enough information on the treatment section.

There is nothing that they are arguing they are just introducing and defining a topic.


 * 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 sections that need more sources. Causes and history both need more.

They reflect a good amount of the research done on the subject, but I do not know if it was all of it completely as I do not have the time to do a complete search of the research.

There were a number of sources from the 2010s as well as earlier, so it did seem to be relevant.

The links that I checked did work.


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It could be more concise. It is not the greatest.

I did not see spelling errors and the grammatical errors were unnoticeable if there were any.

It is broken down well, some of the topics just do not seem as relevant as they could be.


 * 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

There were no images on the article, but that is okay as what could they add to show auditory hallucinations.


 * 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

There are conversations going on about new sections and who should be quoted on things, but the last post to the talk page was over a year ago.

It is a c-class with a mid-importance rating and is part of the psychology project.

We have not talked about it in class because I did not look for a topic we discussed in class just an interesting topic.


 * 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

We could definitely add more information to parts of it should it be available and it is strong in how it presents the topic and does directly reference the DSM-5 for what it is related to. It is well-developed but could do with more.


 * 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: