User:Jocat0616/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Personality disorder

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I am studying psychology and have personal experiences with loved ones having personality disorders. The article was mostly scientific and factual.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead selection

- This article started out with a strong first sentence, overviewing the topic in a clear and organized manner. The first paragraph briefly describes some of the topics that will be covered but not in a direct and in depth way. The lead provides the right amount of detail that a reader knows what they are reading about and want to learn more.


 * Content

- The content in this article is relevant and well written. There is an entire History section, talking about how many people have been misrepresented in the history of diagnosing Personality Disorders. The articles content is up to date in general but also when reviewing the statistics of the DSM 5.


 * Tone and Balance

- The article comes from an educational and professional tone. This article follows a neutral tone, yet when talking about the mistakes that have been made in the history of Psychology, the tone could be seen as condescending because there are a lot of things that would be "common sense" to people today that were not in older days.


 * Sources and References

- This article has many sources embedded throughout the text as well as a references page, further reading and external links. Although many of the references are from the past 10 years, many of them are from the 2000s all the way back to 1979. Adding newer resources would add more credibility. All of the sources I tried seemed to work, with a wide variety of authors and timelines. It provides various versions of the DSM 5 to get better perspective.


 * Organization and Writing Quality

- The article is well written and well organized, with each individual topic having a heading and many supported sources. There is a key on the left hand side, with topics under each carrot to help direct you.


 * Images and Media

- Although there are no actual images in this article, they displayed accurate, helpful and relevant graphs and tables to display information. In my opinion the article would be stronger if they added in some images including brain areas and function, because I can image it could be hard to get neutral images when displaying personality disorders.


 * Talk Page Discussion

- One person on the talk page pointed out the same thing I did, that some of the content and sources are from over 20 years old and that they should be deleted. One person on the talk page talked about how the introduction is too abstract and broad, and that it should be more detailed.


 * Overall impressions

- I think this article was thorough and well written. They provided many sources and evidence to back up their claims. The structure is well done, providing the diagnosis books before going into depth on any of the disorders. This article could be improved by talking about certain disorders at an individualized level, rather than analyzing many illnesses and how they relate/differ.