User:ChefJeffLi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Magnetic seizure therapy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because of its potential use for treating treatment-resistant depression and that I had never heard of this. It matters because it could be a useful treatment for other conditions related to the psychological side of medicine, and I think it would be a great learning point for myself and others on my journey to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles.

Evaluate the article
The lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise but does not fully describe the topic of the article. It may be a slightly under-detailed lead. It does not include a description of the article’s major sections, as there are none. As such, the lead also does not include information that is not present in the article.

The article’s content is relevant to the topic – however, the content and references are mostly out-of-date. The most recent citation for this article is in 2015 on the availability of magnetic seizure therapy (MST) device availability, commercially. Content that is missing is material that addresses pros/cons, side effects, further mechanism of action, comparison to other forms of therapies, and cost. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

This article has a neutral tone, as it does not have any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position nor have any persuasion. Viewpoints that are underrepresented are those that are not addressed or even within the article, due to lack of citation/information. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints within the article.

The facts in this article seem, at first, backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. At the time of the creation of the latest update of this article, it seems the sources used were not the best sources out there. A quick search on PubMed yielded a very information systematic review on the topic ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26075100/ ) that could probably have added a few more sentences, at the very least. The sources were, relatively, not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. One of the sources does have 7-8 authors, which is diverse, but the other sources were either faulty or by a single author. One such faulty link (either it’s broken or the source was just incorrect to begin with) goes to a page about malignant melanomas. The other link seems to be an article written by someone on The Atlantic. It seems the only truly reliable and easily accessible source of information is from PMID 16790630.

The article, albeit short and missing a few reliable sources, is succinct and easy to read to the general populace. I do not spot any grammatical or spelling errors in the article. It is well-organized, but that may be because there is not much information to organize.

This article does not include images. There are currently conversations going on in this article’s talk page. It is only related to WikiProjects as a subcategory.

This article’s overall status is a mid-importance stub and is supported by the Neurology task force. This article’s strength is that it is simple and has a lot of space for improvement (mentioned above in what could be added). It is by no means complete.