User:Daisydriftwood/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: Anxiety disorder
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article is directly relevant to this course's topic, which is anxiety. And although on the whole, it appears to be well developed, I think it can still be improved further so that we can have a more complete and up-to-date version of this article. Details on how it can possibly be improved will be listed down below in each section of the evaluation, where applicable.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Overall, this is a concise and straightforward Lead section, which opens up the article with introductory sentence that clearly states the topic of the article. The main sections are mentioned in the exact order that they would later appear in the body of the article, though a few points mentioned in the Lead are yet to be featured in the article (i.e. Comorbidity).

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and sources cited seem relatively current. Even though, as mentioned above, another section for comorbidity should be included as well, the remaining major points that have previously been mentioned in the Lead all appear in the article. Moreover, the part about mechanisms can be developed further and the epidemiology section should be updated with more current statistics as of now.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article has been written with unbiased languages. They are just mere statements backed up by scientific research. Personally, I think this article is adequately balanced; however, it might be even better if some sections such as mechanism, prevention, or prognosis can be extended more so that the overall look of the article seems more equally distributed among sections.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources seem to be reliable secondary sources that cover a wide period of time, from the early 90s to 2019, with the majority being from the 2010s. Sources cited are the work of various authors and institutions / organizations. When randomly checked, a number of links are still accessible.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is concise, lucid, and free of grammatical and spelling errors. Its structure is also well organized and easy to follow - all major sections are listed in the Lead in the same order that they are covered in the body of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
In the very beginning of the article, the featured painting did actually catch my attention by how it had triggered me to think of anxiety or fear, which I think is very helpful in terms of helping readers visualize about the topic. In the body, there is another painting labeled as "Facial expression of someone with chronic anxiety". Even though it is included with a good / creative intention for visual purposes, I personally think that it is redundant since the expression seems unclear to me.

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
This article belongs to 3 different WikiProjects, including Psychology, Medicine / Psychiatry, and Disability. It is rated B-class, with high importance in all of these WikiProjects. In the Talk page, the conversations seem limited, with 1 out of 3 is an orginal research, which is against Wikipedia policies, and the rest 2 talk about possible medicines as a treatment.

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
The article is concise, straightforward, and well-developed. It is written in neutral languages and the sections are laid out in a logical order. However, as mentioned above, it can be further improved by adding more information to some sections that currently seem shorter than the others, and some figures should be updated with more recent findings.

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: