User:Hraybin/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.


 * Family therapy: Family therapy
 * I was curious about what this article addresses in terms of confidentiality in family therapy

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes as well as giving synonyms for "family therapy"
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not directly but rather gives a broad overview of what family therapy is
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is all relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The most recent reference is from 2014 but overall the content provided in the article has not changed drastically
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The confidentiality rules that apply in family therapy are not present in the article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not address equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

==== Content evaluation: Overall the content is relevant but could benefit from a confidentiality section addressing what that looks like in a family therapy setting. There is no direct address of Wikipedia's equity gaps. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. They provide a good overview of the history of family therapy
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it gives the facts and the evidence behind family therapy

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is one instance that a "requires citation" appears otherwise the article has many secondary sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent reference I found was from 2014 otherwise most references are from the late 90's/early 2000's
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources appear to be from a diverse spectrum of authors as it covers many different view points about family therapy
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work

==== Sources and references evaluation: Sources may need to be updated as the most recent I found was 2014 however, the sources deal with historical principles which do not encounter much change so adding new sources may not be needed. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes very well-written
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized but the "history and theoretical frameworks" could benefit from subheadings

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No but it does provide a chart of theories and techniques that is useful to help visualize
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes the chart is captioned otherwise there are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so
 * 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?
 * Lots of conversations concerning the edits made to the article and proposals for how to improve the topic. Many sources are listed in the talk page and members are responding to one another about suggestions and edits they do not agree with.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is apart of WikiProject Psychology rated b-class, high importance
 * The article is apart of WikiProject Systems rated start class, high importance
 * The article is a part of WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry rated b-class, low importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is much more emphasis on the theoretical and historical frameworks and less emphasis on how it can be applied

==== Talk page evaluation: Some people were not as kind as I believe Wikipedia would like them to be but it was interesting to read all the edits and revisions people were considering to make this page as good as it can be. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think the article provides a neutral, fact-based description of family therapy and how it has evolved overtime as well as looking at the current theories and techniques most common in family therapy
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is well-cited and organized in its delivery
 * How can the article be improved?
 * A section could be added about confidentiality in family therapy settings and the addition of subheadings under the "history and theoretical frameworks" section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed and the amount of research and consideration that has gone into this article shows

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: