User:Hannahchaise/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dissociation (psychology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article because the topic of dissociation has always been interesting to me. I'm constantly researching and listening to others (friends, family, etc) who have experienced this phenomenon caused by trauma. I think that writing about and evaluating this article will help me see a deeper perspective of dissociation.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION:

The lead section clearly defines the available topic, dissociation. It provides resources to Dissociative Identity Disorder Wikipedia article, as well as another Dissociation article. It does not include any sections or topics that are not covered lower in the article. It’s clean, concise and a great introductory lead section with relevant information found uniformly throughout.

CONTENT:

The article content is very relevant to the topic. The article describes the history, diagnosis procedures, etiology, correlation, and treatment for dissociation. The content that is described in the introduction is accurately headed, as well as in-depth talked about throughout the article with relevant and up-to-date research. All of the content throughout the article is meticulously cited, with creative flow and easy-to-understand concepts that are clearly defined. Each heading has relevant subheadings that add important and useful information to the main subject.

TONE AND BALANCE:

The article consists of a very professional and neutral tone. Nothing that I read indicated any bias or implicit biases, with all the viewpoints being represented adequately with citations to explain. The author concisely and educationally explains each topic with a viewpoint of neutrality. The article does not attempt to persuade or influence and reader in any position, whether that be the legitimates of dissociation or the illegitimates of the topic. The article is very well balanced, with information flowing In sequential order.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

All the facts presented in this article were backed up by citations and proven from other sources. All the sources are relevant, reflect peer-review literature and all of the links I clicked worked. One thing I did notice, some of the citations were not current. For instance, some of the article years were published in 2001, 2000, 1965, 1977, 1921, 1944, 1991, 2006 and others. While the articles are high quality and peer reviewed, I am assuming that more recent work would be better to publish with.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY:

As stated previously above, the writing is concise and professional, with clear sections that add relevance to the topics being discussed. The article has no grammatical or spelling errors, as well as being well-organized and thought out. The article is extremely thorough between sections, providing enough information to understand the topic but not oversaturating a specific subset of dissociation.

IMAGES AND MEDIA:

There were no images or media attached to the article.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION:

The talk page for this article was intensive. There were many arguments, with some people specifying that some articles or points were accurate- while others completely disagreed. There were many strong feelings about how and why dissociation should be presented accurately, and many self-reported experts spoke up about the topics discussed, removed, and edited others. The article is rated C-class, Mid-Importance.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:

This article was clearly written, highlighting all of the main objectives over the topic of dissociation. It was very educational, while simultaneously being backed by credible sources that are peer reviewed. While some of the sources were outdated, it was still credible sites. The flow and overall composition was very well presented, with topics making sense in chronological order. Overall, this was a very well-written and professional article.