User:ClaudiaBecker/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: Hysteria (Hysteria)
 * I have selected this article to evaluate because I'm interested in the history of psychological disorders and how Clinical Psychology evolved. Furthermore, I am interested in how social roles and culture historically impacted Psychology (i.e. the gendering of disorders).

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead concisely introduces the topic in laymen's terms. However, after the first sentence the article jumps into the history of the concept instead of clarifying the official medical definition of the term. In addition, there is not a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead articulates how over time hysteria split into multiple, different disorders; however, this information is not mentioned in either section of the article. The lead of this article is short and to the point; however, fails to clarify the official definition of hysteria or how hysteria historically progressed.


 * 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 article's content is relevant to the topic, but jumps from fact to fact without explaining how the phenomenon progressed and was popularized. More information needs to be added to explain how hysteria transitioned from a physical disorder to a mental disorder, when the APA moved away from diagnosing hysteria, etc. The content is as recent as the 20th century.


 * 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 is neutral in tone and states the facts plainly, but sometimes too colloquially. The article does not attempt to persuade or represent any viewpoints, although it is possible the article leans slightly towards a feminist perspective by pinpointing the invalidity of hysteria.


 * 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
 * The majority of the facts are backed up by academic journals. However, some of the facts listed do not have sources linked to them and some of the sources do not have working links. While the sources present are reliable and some of them are as recent as 2018, more sources could be included.


 * 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
 * The lead of the article could use some editing to make it more user friendly. The writer should use plain language so as not to confuse readers of varying education. Furthermore, some of the sentences should be broken up to improve the clarity of the article. There are only two sections of the article (origin and modern concept) so the article reads easily; however, there is no bridge to take the reader from the origin to the modern concept.


 * 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
 * The article contains one image which portrays a wheel of emotions. I did not think this image was helpful in my understanding of the topic and no caption was included to explain the image's relation to hysteria. I thought the large size of the image actually detracted from the article. The images do adhere to the copyright regulations. In the talk page another user also noted her displeasure with the image, stating it did not make sense with the topic.


 * 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
 * The talk page mostly consists of comments about improving the article--grammatically and content wise. There is also conversation about whether hysteria should stand independent of female hysteria. The page is rated Start-Class and is a part of 3 WikiProjects: WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Gender Studies, WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness. We have not yet spoken explicitly about the topic in class; however, in our class we would likely point out the historical biases which underline diagnoses like hysteria. In our class we would likely state our opinions on the disorder as well which would not be appropriate for a Wikipedia page.


 * 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
 * Overall the article needs more information. Research should be conducted on the history of hysteria as well as the plethora of case studies and experiments conducted on hysteria. The article does a fair job of acknowledging the difference between "hysteria" as a diagnosis and as slang, but could improve by sharpening the clinical definition of hysteria. The article also does a decent job of acknowledging how gendered hysteria was from origin to present day. The article needs to connect the origins of hysteria to the modern day conception of hysteria through a brief history using reliable sources. Furthermore, those sources should be linked so that users can easily access them. In my opinion the article is poorly developed because of the sheer lack of information.


 * 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: