User:CieloGissel95/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Amygdala

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in learning more about individuals' emotional responses to certain events and stimuli, so studying the amygdala will help me in that effort. Understanding the amygdala is extremely important, as it helps explain the ways in which men and women differ in their emotional development over their lifetimes, how the different parts of the amygdala are connected to certain aspects of memory retention and emotional responses, and how damage to this part of the brain can leave individuals with impairments of the amygdala which may, in turn, impact the way that they respond to new events in their lives, either positively or negatively. My initial impression of the article is that it is well-written, but it has a fair amount of scientific jargon that complicates a reader's understanding of the topic. Without a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the various parts of the amygdala (since there are numerous regions within that one biological feature of the brain), it would be very challenging to be able to make all of the connections between some of the content in this article. That said, it still covers many interesting topics throughout.

Evaluate the article
As mentioned above, this article is well-written and organized. The lead section gives a clear introduction to the topic and allows readers to open up their knowledge of the amygdala. It is concise and to-the-point, as well as including the basic information that would be covered in the article. Directly below that section, there is a guide that explains all of the different content that will be covered in more detail in the article.

The content of the article is relevant to the topic, with focuses on the structure of the region of the brain, the development of the amygdala, and its functions. It also explains the connections between the neurological features of the brain and the psychological developments that humans display at times. The content is up-to-date, with many articles that have been published in the last fifteen years, many of which were published more recently. However, the article does not really deal with equity gaps, as the only major distinctions that are made between different population groups in the article are between men and women, as opposed to different socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic groups. That said, that might not be as relevant information, as the amygdala is a section of the brain and a biological feature that, theoretically, should develop the same regardless of racial or ethnic background.

The sources of this article are well-organized. There are many footnotes throughout and the references are very comprehensive. However, it is unclear whether they were written by diverse sets of individuals based on the information provided in the references section at the bottom of the page.

This article is well-balanced. The tone is neutral and does not seem to posit a particular point of view, but instead, simply presents information and does so in an objective manner. It does not seem to argue any viewpoints more than others, so it appears that the article is presenting all sides fairly.

The writing quality of the article is strong. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I have found, which make it more fluid in terms of its readability overall. However, there are a lot of industry-specific, technical terms that complicate the reading. One might need to do a lot of background reading on the different sub-features of the amygdala in order to understand this article, but the quality of the writing is strong overall.

The article does have relevant images that help to inform the reader of the material that the article covers. They have captions to help explain what they represent and are incorporated in a way that is visually appealing and so that they correspond with the proper topics. It appears that they are all used in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright guidelines.

In terms of the Talk section, it looks like most of the commentary is from more than 10-15 years ago, which is a bit troublesome. Some of the comments towards the bottom of the page are more recent, however. Most of the comments are dealing with the veracity of the article's sections, specifically in relation to whether some of the citations are trustworthy, since one of the articles cited was from BBC, rather than a peer-reviewed medical science journal. That said, there are a few questions of the wording in some of the sections, but it is mostly focused on what content should be included and what should not.

Overall, I think the article is solid. It is mostly clear and has good example of studies that inform us about the amygdala. It is also inclusive of some of the most relevant features of what we need to know about the amygdala, such as how it develops and what its functions are. The articles' greatest strengths are that it covers the material clearly with real-world examples. Its greatest weaknesses are that it has some language that needs further explanation. I think it seems shorter than many other articles I've seen on Wikipedia, but even so, it still seems like a complete article.