User:Kristen RL/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.


 * Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I have an interest in mental health and psychology, but have never heard of this criterion. Since there is little information about it in the article, I wanted to help contribute so that I would better understand this criterion while also helping others to understand it, too.

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?

The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It provides a definition of the Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections - the article does not have any major sections. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article (the Lead is the article). The Lead is concise. The Lead is a definition of the concept.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The article's content is relevant to the topic. As stated in the above Lead section, the content is the Lead and provides a concise definition of Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion. The content is not up-to-date because it is missing information, like the history of the criterion, which developed countries use or have used this criterion, why countries choose to use or not use this criterion, why the topic is controversial, etc. The Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion is controversial, but the article does not state viewpoints of the two opposing sides.

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?

The article is neutral due to its lack of information. It does not state that the Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion is a controversial topic. There are not any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. The viewpoints for and against the Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion are underrepresented because they are not provided. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, it just provides a definition of the criterion.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The article's reference citation is for a study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. The article's reference citation is the only source, besides other Wikipedia pages that provide definitions of terms within the criterion's definition. The sources are not very, however. More literature and research on the topic exists than is provided in the article. The study was published in 2004, so it is not very current. The sources are not very diverse. The one source (the study) is from authors who are both from German, so the article does not provide information for a diverse spectrum of authors. The links do 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?

The article is well written in that it is concise, clear, easy to read, and lacking grammatical or spelling errors. The article is not well organized because it lacks any sections.

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?

The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic. The article does not include any images.

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?

There are not any conversations going on behind the scenes. There are no conversations on the article's Talk page. It is of interest to WikiProject Hospitals, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry, WikiProject Psychology. For all of these projects, the article is rated as a Stub-class of low-importance. Since Wikipedia does not discuss the topic (there are no conversations in the Talk page), there are not any aspects that motivate individuals to contribute.

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?

The article's overall status is a Stub of low-importance. The article provides a good definition of the Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion, with one valid source. The article is in need of improvement. It can be improved by adding information on when and why the criterion was initially created, which countries use it, why the criterion is controversial, and what the two opposing sides believe. I would assess the article's completeness as underdeveloped. There is nothing necessarily incorrect about the article, it just lacks 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: