User:Ccurry24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dementia - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is an interesting topic within psychology. Dementia is a complex disease that affects memory that has no cure as of now. Evaluating an article such as a seemingly uncurable disease is a good way to look and think more critically on this topic.

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.)

The introduction sentence does provide a clear idea of what dementia is and the onset of the disease. It then leads to different diseases related to dementia such as Parkinson's disease and different diagnoses for this illness. Ultimately, the lead does have a brief description of everything in the article while still being quite concise.

All of the information from the article is directly related to the topic and was recently updated on 21 January 2022. This article on dementia does not seem to have any missed concepts and has the important information that is needed. It even goes over the epidemiology of dementia. This includes income mentioning that a majority are low- or middle-class people. It also shares the percentages of those sufferers based on continent and age differences.

Since this article is based on a scientific medical condition of the brain, it would be difficult to have it not come off as neutral. There are no heavy biases that I could pick out while reading this article, nor where there any over or underrepresented points of view throughout the article. The only fringe views I could find would be behind the history of the disease and it is presented clearly as inaccurate information. Again, since this is a medical article, it purely provides information and does not have much of a chance to persuade from any other view of the sickness.

There are many, many secondary references that both support the article and are current. The author uses many different diversities and marginalized communities through the epidemiology and history of dementia. The main problem with the majority of the sources is using other Wikipedia articles to validate, but the author used many scientifical, reliable resources as well. The sources I checked went to the correct article and all of them appeared to be reliable sources.

The organizational levels of this article are genuinely beautiful to me with how the construction of it is written. It is concise and easy to read, while still using terminology to give a good overview of the topic. I did not notice any misspellings or grammatical errors, but how technical the article was, I may have read over it not understanding every term used. The author used good organization when writing the headers. Every point made had a topic heading separating the different parts of the article.

The imagery in the article is probably the worst thing about the article. There are little pictures and a few charts. The charts are well sourced and the images in total have decent descriptions under them. All of the images seem to follow the copyright rules of Wikipedia as well. The charts are laid out the most appealing by giving a greater understanding to that section of the article.

In the talk page, there is no talking about the article and just shows mainly wiki-education reviews. There is one sentence at the end asking about the accuracy of one sentence. The article was recently cleaned up, but it shows it has a rating of C-class. It also does not seem to be a part of any WikiProjects as of right now. Wikipedia seems to speak about this article in more of a reliability way compared to in class we talk about grammatical errors the most it feels like.

After my evaluation of the article, I see it as being informative, organized, and quite a good read. It has to be accurate to the highest degree speaking on a medical issue which means I think it could have been cleaner overall. However, the sources were reliable, and I think it was ultimately a good article. The main strengths of the article were the sources, organization, history, and terminology used to describe dementia. It could improve on the images, but it does the majority of other qualities well. I feel that the article has been developed appropriately and very recently as well. It could have more development as with any article, but it developed nicely.