User:Jordanj140/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: Psychedelic therapy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because Johns Hopkins was the first in the nation to receive governmental support for psychedelics research and continues to lead psychedelics research in the United States.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and does a great job introducing what psychedelic therapy is and how it is different from other forms of medicated therapy. However, it does lack a brief description of the article's major sections, so adding in a sentence or so about the article's major sections would make the lead better.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Most of the article's content is relevant to the topic, but there are some parts that I feel can be fixed. For example, in the "Applications in Alcoholism" section, a figure named Bill Wilson is quoted too excessively (fills almost the whole section). Additionally, some of the content could be updated by adding in new research findings and methods.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article stays neutral, informative, and does not appear to have any claims that are heavily biased. There are, however, some sections that have a lot of information and others with very scarce information. Perhaps the balance of the article could be improved.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts in the article are all backed up by either reliable secondary sources or research papers published in research journals. While not fully updated, the sources are thorough and plentiful. The five links that I checked all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written and does a great job breaking down different complex methods of psychedelic therapy. I noticed some grammatical errors, but they do not impede understanding of the article. The article is well-organized but the balance of information could be modified.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images and media present on the article, so perhaps to improve the article, images could be added.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There are conversations regarding ways to improve the organization and the content of the topic. One of the biggest criticisms on the talk page was the fact that the article draws too much on primary sources instead of secondary sources. The article is rated B-class/mid-importance and is part of WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, and WikiProject Alternative medicine.

Wikipedia definitely discusses the topic a lot more objectively than the way we've talked about it in class. In class, we tend to share more of our personal impressions and thoughts on the topic, while Wikipedia offers a much more generalized and factual view of the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article offers a good introduction on what psychedelic therapy is, what it can be used for, and the different methods of administering psychedelics. It is concise, easy to read, and includes relatively new research findings. However, the article could be improved by further adding more content from newer secondary sources and research papers. I think that the article is a little bit underdeveloped because there are some sections that could use a lot more content and information.

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: