User:Catebenitez25/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: Mental disorders and gender
 * I have always been interested in this topic and it was one of my interests for the research project at the end of the year.


 * Lead
 * Guiding questions
 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes because the introductory sentence is pretty much an extension of the title.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it briefly touches on the major aspects of the piece that it hopes to develop more.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and easy to understand and interpret.

Lead evaluation
I think that the Lead is one of the best aspects of the article. This is because it sets out its goals for the article nicely and is concise and easy to interpret. It is a good overview for what the rest of the article has in store.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content included has relevance to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I think that most of the content is up-to-date and includes the impact on the LGBTQ+ community.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be a discussion of more mental disorders that have gender disparity such as BPD, antisocial personality disorder and autism. The coping mechanism section could be broadened to include more marginalized groups and communities. There could also be a brief section that discusses how mental disorder diagnoses could play a role in gender stereotypes and disparity (the reverse not just gender stereotypes playing on the diagnosis). I think that most sections are up to date but could be expanded such as the bias in medicine and possibly a brief section about bias in research. Although there may be other pages that discuss these elements, they are still important to expand a little more on this main page.

Content evaluation
I think in all that there is relevant information on this page but that there needs to be editing to go back and check the content and make sure it is backed up by sources. The author claims that there are not marked differences in the diagnosis rates of schizophrenia and BPD when there is more than enough scientific data to prove that this statement is false. There needs to be an overall review of all of the information to make sure it is accurate, although it is relevant and important to include.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I think that there is some bias to the article. This is when the author makes statements such as there are no marked differences in gender in the diagnosis rates of specific disorders. Statements like these make the article seem to be overall false because they harm the credibility of the author.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not think so since it attempts to focus on marginalized groups. There could be more about men and how they are affected by mental disorders as well. And as I described above, there are claims that make the author seem to lean a certain way.
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that overall the article is neutral and explains a lot of different point of views within the LGBTQ+ community and women. However, there are some claims that are bias or need further research in order to support. The page could use work on that, but overall it is a neutral source. I do not think that viewpoints are overrepresented but there could be perspectives of other marginalized groups or of men more.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Many of the sources are scholarly journals or articles but there are some facts that have no references to them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes I think that the sources reflect a wide amount of different knowledge on the topic. There are articles about eating disorders in the LGBTQ+ population specifically and eating disorders in men and how they are misdiagnosed.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most of the sources are up to date with the current framework.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all of the links that I checked went to scholarly articles or studies.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources that are used are valuable and are efficient in their role in the page. However, the author does not cite many of the facts that are made especially in the introduction paragraph. Due to this, there are claims made with no background evidence to support them. On the other hand, when I did glance through the sources, they were reputable for the information that they support.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes I think that the article is clear and is divided into sections that are interesting and essential to the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes I think that it is split up into differences between genders in their world and how this impacts their mental health. This has to do with societal concepts as well as biological. I think that this was a good way to split it up while touching on coping mechanisms and treatment.

Organization evaluation
I think that the organization of the page is good and there are no major spelling or grammatical errors that need attending to.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images but I do not think that they serve to enhance the understanding of the topic overall.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well-captioned and straight to the point but are not essential for the understanding of the topic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they adhere to the regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, I do not think so. The images could have better function and placement on the site.

Images and media evaluation
The images do not improve the article at all. I think there could be more images that are more visually appealing and contain more information on the subject. This is definitely an area of improvement that could strengthen the article and make it more attractive for future readers.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
When I went on the "talk" page major contributions were actually made from a prior culture, gender and medicine class. They added the major sections that included coverage on the LGBTQ+ community and changed the structure of the introduction to make it more representative of the entire piece. Wikipedia rated this article C class and of low importance. Prior to the group making a lot of contributions to the page, there were discussions on the "talk page" about facts that were not cited and information that was not clearly sourced. There was a discussion for more research on the topic to broaden the horizon of the website and to change some of the information that without a source comes across as biased. I think that the information on this page is valuable but it does not talk extensively about mental disorders and the way that the diagnosis has an impact on these groups, which we learned about in class. This could be added to the post. They did discuss controversial diagnoses such as hysteria and other topics that we covered in class extensively.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I think that overall the article could use further improvement. The strength of the article is in its organization and the vital topics and sections that provide good information for the entire article. It could be improved in its sourcing and visual technique. There could be more images to draw the reader in and there has to be a fact check mechanism that provides the article with the credibility it needs. I think that the article is well-developed because it has potential due to the extensive topics that it includes along with its up-to-date information in regard to what is accurately sourced and cited.

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:Mental disorders and gender