User:Janine.2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neuropolitics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I was intrigued to discover what neuropolitics was and what role it plays in the bigger political picture. It matters because neuropolitics goes into depth of how people make political decisions, evaluate candidates, and participate in various political movements. My first impression was that neuropolitics had something to do with the brain (because of "neuro") and poltiics, but I wasn't sure how exactly the relationship was defined.

Evaluate the article
The introduction of the article, "Neuropolitics", is concise, yet gives a comprehensive summary of the content in the rest of the article. There isn't entirely a section that summarizes the articles major sections: it is mainly just implied through the actual content. As far as the introduction goes, there is no information mentioned in the paragraph that isn't mentioned in the rest of the article.

Overall, the tone of the article is very neutral. Many of the statements are directly quoted/summarized from studies and notable philosophers such as Plato and John Locke. The only section where there is a bit of an opinion is the introductory sentence of the section "Politics in other species", as it mentions that "despite the risks of anthropomorphizing the behaviors of non-human animals, researchers have investigated the politics of a number of social species". There aren't very many viewpoints, just statements of the results of the studies conducted by the authors of the various sources. Therefore, the audience isn't persuaded of a particular side. One thing I would mention is that the section about history of Neuropolitics is longer than the subsequent sections--Neuroimaging and Politics in other species.

The overall content of the article is relevant to the topic. Though I feel that there could be more content added, more research would be required. The content is relatively up-to-date. I would lean towards up-to-date as Neuropolitics seems like a more timeless topic. This article doesn't address equity gaps, but it does address a different type of gap, being various political opinions.

Most, if not all, of the content in the article is backed by a source. Whether it be sourced from the same source, or different, each sentence either redirects to a study. The links I clicked on all worked, except for those that link to names, and they were certainly diverse, with studies quoting books, philosophers, professors, and more. The sources do reflect the content of the article, but there is also a lack of overall content about the topic in general. As far as the references go, the majority are peer-reviewed papers.

The article is very easy to read and is concise. There aren't any spelling or grammatical errors and is broken down to relevant sections. There are, however, no images, but based on the content of the article, it doesn't seem that there is a need for one.

Discussing the article's Talk page, it is interesting to read about one fellow Wikipedian's opinion on this topic, quoting an author, Timothy Leary, about his book

"Political Neurology". It is an older book, but as I said, Neuropolitics is more of a timeless subject to discuss. Other than that, there is one other discussion about fixing an external link. Since it is a smaller topic, Wikipedia has rated this article as a C-class, and it isn't part of any projects. Though it is of lower importance, it serves as an interesting addition to the bigger topics of politics.

Overall, I would say this article is concise, informative, but could do with more research and content. With recent political events, it would be interesting to see if other notable studies discuss Neuropolitics in conjunction with current events. 2011 isn't considered outdated, but a more recent source would make this article even more relevant.

Talk:Neuropolitics