User:Jrsauer/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: Generalized anxiety disorder
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article on generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is quite poorly drafted (e.g., see the section titled "Substance-induced"). This section in particular seems to have been written by an author who may have conflated the anxiety experienced by individuals who suffer GAD with anxiety experienced by individuals suffering from detoxification / substance withdrawal in the context of substance use disorder (SUD).  There are also problems with this article - e.g., the Genetics section consists of two (2) poorly drafted lines that seem to place emphasis on the role of genetics in GAD but tell the reader little.  In terms of citations, from what I've reviewed thus far, this article also makes poor use of primary sources (which I appreciate are generally a problem for such articles).  To say that the article is generally a bad read is an understatement.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is such an introductory sentence but the first and second sentences could probably be combined to make a statement that would help to identify GAD vs other conditions that involve worry. Also, GAD doesn't necessarily need to involve events or activities (which is what the introductory sentence currently claims).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but not desirable.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, but it is poorly drafted and content often makes assumptions about patients who have GAD (e.g., claiming that a person with GAD would be able to regain "previous good health" if a person abstains from benzodiazepine or alcohol dependence).
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Broadly yes, but the medications are mentioned without any kind of artfulness (e.g., no mention of benzodiazepines).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article raises the topic of anxiety experienced by withdrawal from substances and conflates it with the anxiety of GAD.
 * The article also mentions anxiety in the context of stimulants (e.g., caffeine) without any kind of artfulness.
 * Classes of medications are not mentioned
 * The article jumps right into pharmacological treatment without mentioning lifestyle or other adjustments that might be tried first.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article mentions that certain minority groups may be disproportionately affected by GAD.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? - Generally yes, but the article makes assumptions about relationships that may not be true (e.g., that smoking may be implicated in developing anxiety disorders).
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, as mentioned above, the article conflates GAD with anxiety experienced as part of other disorders (e.g., substance use disorder in the context of substance withdrawal).
 * 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
Typically, the tone of this article is that of a novice voicing common misconceptions about GAD with a few probably valid points. The tone, however, sometimes differs between sections to assume that of an activist to offer a critique - e.g., "there's a need for enhancement of current components of CBT."

This article on GAD goes off on a tangent in regard to Albert Ellis (psychologist) who seems to have suggested methods of self-monitoring and symptom control for individuals suffering GAD.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. For example, see the "Pathophysiology" section, which focuses on describing a neurological basis for GAD but which offers only one (1) citation to a 2009 primary source article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, see above.
 * In the "other" section, there is a citation to a "crash course" article from 2004 among other outdated articles.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are fairly diverse -- but as mentioned above, they are outdated and often primary.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links to references seem to work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammar or spelling issues observed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is an image that shows the amygdala -- which I think is quite nice. Otherwise, no images offered.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The single image offered at present (showing the amygdala in a rotating brain) is appropriately labeled as pertaining to the amygdala, but the rest of the caption is not helpful ("Amygdala (in red) brain structures linked to anxiety disorders") and contains a grammar mistake (structures in the plural whereas the image highlights a single structure).
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, this image is from the Wikimedia Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

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?
 * Yes, this article implicates several WikiProjects:
 * Psychology
 * Medicine / Psychiatry
 * Disability
 * Women's Health
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's in progress but at present, it is poorly drafted (e.g., see DSM-5 criteria: "A. Too much anxiety or worry over more than six months.").
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a nice image of the amygdala.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs a fresh drafting and needs to get rid of conflations between anxiety in the context of GAD and anxiety experienced as part of other psychiatric or medical conditions.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Poorly developed.

Overall evaluation
This article is poorly drafted and uncritically suggest a relationship between GAD and a plurality of other, often conflated topics, treatments and prevention strategies (e.g., one can prevent GAD by increasing one's core temperature in an effort to "relax muscles" or that "avoidance of caffeine may prevent GAD"). Overall, the article often mistakes GAD anxiety for anxiety in general.

Some claims seem flatly untrue - e.g., "GAD is the most common cause of disability in the workplace in the United States."

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: