User:Jamie Kerby/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: (Wilderness therapy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I thought it would be interesting and the article stated that most attendees are youth. I haven't heard a lot about this treatment and thought this would be a good way to look into it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The introductory sentence is somewhat clear and defines the topic of the article. The sentence has multiple links to other articles. The lead did not include a description of the major sections, although there is a table of contents. However, because the article is so short, I wonder if it needs a description until more information is added. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is too concise and it could use a few more details.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic, although most sections need more content. Some of the content needs to be updated. For example, the History section is only two sentences long and needs to be added to. The talk page documented that no edits have been made since 2018. The topic relates to the class because it involves a potential treatment modality for children to be explored. There is not information that doesn't belong. They could additionally add the components of Wilderness Therapy as they only put 1-2 sentences about how it is conducted.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is written in a neutral tone until the controversy section. The controversy section is the longest section by far and gives the most information. This sways the article to a negative bias. There is a sentence about the cost of the treatment that may be a little negatively biased, but it could be just me.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are citations that need to be added in the overview section. Some of the sources are recent, and some of them are from the early '90s. There is a wide range of different sources and authors in the references section. The links that I tried in the article all worked. They referenced Madolyn M. Liebing, Ph.D. but did not include a link to more information about this person. I do liked that they added outside sources that accredit or certify programs.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is concise and well-organized but way too short. The article needs much more information. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. It is easy to read.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There is only one image at the beginning of the article. I suppose it could enhance the reader's understanding of a topic, although it does look like people just hiking. The image is captioned, although like I said it doesn't really show the therapy aspect of the article. The image is laid out in a nice, visually appealing way. The image was cited with links to the owner.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There was a debate in 2018 about whether the article should merge with Adventure-Therapy, which was never resolved as the users stopped discussing it. In 2010, a user made a lot of edits that related to bias in the article (good job, you helped that!). There were also questions about why there needed to be a controversy section. The article was rated a "C" and is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. It's really different for me to see an article about therapy treatments without seeing how the intervention was done, how many people typically go, what smaller interventions are implicated or were more effective, etc. It seems so vague compared to what I normally read about therapies.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article has a good foundation but needs more information added into it. The article is well put together and is well-written but is too short to be really relevant or useful. It could be good for a quick read for users not wanting to read a lot on the topic though. They should add more history, citations, and add in information that will balance the overall negative tone of the article.


 * 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?

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: