User:Jseibel93/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: Behavioral addiction
 * I chose this article because addiction as a broad subject is one that I am interested in, particularly in helping those who suffer from addiction.

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
Honestly, I don't think the lead was bad. It did a good job of introducing the topic. One thing I noted was that the lead didn't introduce every section of the article. As well, it appeared to have some information that wasn't present anywhere else. I think the lead though in general was concise, introduced the topic, and covered some of the sections within the article itself so it did get the job done.

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
I felt like the article as a whole included a lot of useful information, gave a lot of information, and had up to date information. Though, I will say some of it is actually out of date and there are articles that are over 15 years old at this point, which may need to be relooked at incase there is newer and more relevant information. All the sections though are important to the topic of addiction ranging from potential treatments, mechanisms, and the classification. They could have done a better job at cutting information though in the biomolecular mechanism section, and it does feel like they could have expanded more in research about social media addiction if they were going to mention it.

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 does a good job of appearing neutral. It does not seem to be arguing to make anyone favor any view personally, nor do I see any viewpoints it is trying to get some one to lean towards.

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
Not all of the facts are actually backed up by a reliable source. There are LARGE chunks of information that do not seem to have citations, as well as some do not even appear to be cited right. Honestly, I feel this may be a weak point of the article with articles that are a bit older, large chunks of information given with out a citation, and so on. There are a lot of them though for some, so some are incredibly thorough.

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
While, the article did a good job of breaking the content off into sections, I feel the organization was a bit off. Some information from sections felt better suited for other sections, such as mention mechanisms and research in one section when theres dedicated sections for that. As well, a long of the paragraphs and sentences felt like they kept running on, which made it feel like the flow was a bit off. Breaking off some sections and sentences earlier would have been beneificial.

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 zero images or media here so not applicable.

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
The talk page seems to rate the topic as a C rated article, but was recently part of a wiki project so it is slowly expanding. There seems to be talk on sentence structure, the article had talk of being merged with another. The talk page is rather well, though names of peoples comments arent there which throws me off a tad so it may be hard to identify who is talking.

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

 * Honestly, the articles overall status I would say is okay. It's definitely been worked on and has some useful information! I feel like the article did a good job of providing content that was relevant for the most part, and I actually enjoyed how the lead was. Though the article could use some work with the general structure, flow of sentences, and citing sources. It is a bit of an underdeveloped article though, especially with lack of media, it just feels incomplete. Feels like a work in progress thats been editted but still needs some effort to finish it up.