User:Jackhan8582/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Body dysmorphic disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Body dysmorphia is a topic that I am personally interested in as it pertains to long-term fitness and the psychology of exercise. This article is well written, but it is not fully expansive. It seems like there could be some opportunities to add to this article.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is strong and concise. It provides a solid definition of the disease as a mental disorder, as well as it's classification in the DSM 5, and differentiates between the multiple variants of the disorder. It also addresses the fact that the disorder is under-diagnosed, and the effects that it can have on those who have it.

Content

The content of this article is also strong. It covers the topics of signs and symptoms, causes, treatments, diagnosis, and history. While these are all necessary topics that are covered, I think that the treatment and history sections could be expanded. They are concise, but perhaps to the point that not all aspects of the topic are covered. Research seems to be recent, within the last 10-15 years, and the focus overall is balanced.

Tone and Balance

The article maintains a neutral tone. No claims are made in favor of one view, treatment, or cause of the disorder. There are no signs of personal bias or experience being inserted into the content, either. I actually really appreciate how black-and-white the contributors have kept this article.

Sources and References

This article is currently based on 54 different sources. All major topics and vocabulary are linked to their own Wikipedia pages, showing that the sources of information are "strong" according to Wikipedia guidelines. Looking at the bibliography, there seems to be a very diverse selection of authors, and the sources themselves are not individual studies. Links seem to all be functional.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well written and, as I stated before, the information is kept very black-and-white. This makes for a very clear article where the information does not seem distorted, conflated, or confused. The grammar and spelling are all correct according to Grammarly, and the article is cohesively written. You almost cannot tell that it was written by different people, which also speaks to the neutrality of the article's tone.

Images and Media

Imagery is certainly lacking. There is only one image in the lead section- a cartoon representing what it's like to look in the mirror with body dysmorphia. While I believe that this is an appropriate image to insert in the article, I think that there could be more throughout, especially in the history section.

Talk Page Discussion

The talk page is full of ideas and questions that make the final version of the article even more impressive. Compared to the talk page, the article itself is so well filtered. There are many discussion topics asking to add certain topics that are definitely driven by personal biases and experiences. There are also a few people alerting contributors to the possibility that the article had been victim to article-vandalism. There are also people suggesting more sources and citations to use, as well as civil disagreements. The talk page overall seems very productive and a safe space to soundboard ideas.

Overall Impressions

I am excited to dive more into this article and discuss my ideas with other contributors. This article is so well-written but still has some areas left for contribution. It also sets a sort of rubric for me to follow in terms of how concise and cohesive the writing should be.