User:Fwilliamson3/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: Fight-or-flight response
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * After reading the assigned readings for class on 9/17, it seems as though the fight-or-flight response is fundamental to understanding how anxiety works. It has been around since the dawn of man and governs how we respond to aversive stimuli.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, it only briefly describes the neurological processes behind the fight-or-flight response.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it doesn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and well-worded. It gives you enough to know whether you will be interested in reading the rest of the article, but not so much to where reading the rest of the article is unnecessary.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is. There was one article referenced that was from 1992 but it is still very much relevant and accurate in the context of the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I'd like to see more about modern day fight-or-flight responses and how that differs from the fight-or-flight responses of our ancestors (ex. we live in different environments so we aren't responding to the same sorts of things).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, but this doesn't seem particularly applicable to this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is. The article is purely informational from both a biological and psychological standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not really.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, not really.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't know enough about the fight-or-flight response to know this, but I do wonder if there are other perspectives than the evolutionary perspective that could be touched upon in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts are footnoted to relevant links.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they come from credible sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, for the most part all of the sources were published in the past 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It seems as though the sources were written by a diverse range of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see (no glaring errors).
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is broken down to reflect the fight-or-flight response from all of the different perspectives (physiological, cognitive, emotional, etc.)

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I don't feel as though all of the images were entirely necessary (especially the last one), but they did make the article more exciting.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I would have liked to see the diagram captioned better so that those with screen readers would be better able to access them.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can see, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was one mention of the biological part of the article being directly plagiarized which was rather concerning. Other than that there was a lot of discussion on fight-or-flight responses and how they varied across different species.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is a part of WikiProjects on psychology, neuroscience, and medicine. It is rated in the C-Class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The article seems to approach this topic from a more neurological/biological standpoint whereas we've always talked about it in the context of how it's applicable to everyday life in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-Class.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is concise and well-written. It seems to be accessible to a diverse range of audiences.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article should be revised to ensure that it isn't plagiarized and adjusted to incorporate differing fight-or-flight responses across species.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would like to compare similar pages about fight-or-flight response to ensure that relevant information is pulled from all pages and put in one place.

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: