User:Deisymf/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: Bipolar disorder in children
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article to evaluate because I'm interested in education where I'm able to educate others about an important matter and child psychology.

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
The lead includes a very confusing introductory sentence where they focus on comparing pediatric bipolar disorder with adult bipolar disorder. The lead does include brief descriptions of the article's major sections.The article is too concise it mentions certain topics but doesn't elaborate on it.

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?

Content evaluation
There is a great amount of off-topic information and content. I wasn't able to find a lot of content that is related to the topic. The content was last updated in November 2019. There is a lot of information that the article is missing that is relevant and crucial to include/mention. There isn't any pictures or graphs that are included. It is only text which isn't quite appealing or eye catching.

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
The article is neutral. It talks about both sides on the controversy about bipolar disorder. The article doesn't seem to persuade the reader to agree to one position or viewpoint.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the facts in the article aren't backed up by secondary sources of information. Primary sources are mainly used. No it focuses on other information that isn't related to childhood bipolar disorders. A lot of the sources are dated. Yes they do work.

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
The article lacks in writing. There is terminology that is talked about but not defined which makes readers not be able to understand what they're reading. The article is well organized since subtopics are sectioned. The article has minor grammatical and spelling errors.

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
The article doesn't use any sort of media or images to aide the reader when reading the article. So the rest of the questions aren't applicable.

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
The article is rated as a C-class, mid-importance. It is part of the Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neurology WikiProjects. There are a lot of conversations regarding structure, information, use of sources, getting familiar with Wikipedia rules. This topic in class is supported by research articles and images were presented as well. Examples were given and the information was shown clearly.

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
This article needs major improvements, it's bearly in its first stages and poorly developed. All the sections need more information to be included. As well, have visual content added. More background information is needed. Overall, each section needs more information.

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: