User:Laney Stearman/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Female hysteria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is interesting to me, it is important because it informs people about the history of the diagnosis of hysteria. My preliminary impression was that the article appears to contain a lot of potentially interesting and educational information, organized in neat sections.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * includes clear, but not concise, introductory sentence
 * contains brief description of some sections, but not the Freud and decline of diagnosis section
 * Does not include information that isn't in the article
 * is generally concise except for the relatively long first sentence.

Content


 * Content is relevant to topic
 * Is up to date
 * all content is relevant, and there doesn't seem to be any missing information
 * speaks briefly of women's rights, access to proper healthcare, and feminism

Tone and Balance


 * Article is neutral
 * no biased claims or positions taken
 * no skewed representation of viewpoints
 * spoke briefly of specific feminist writers, and their objectives in their writings
 * does not make any attempt to persuade reader

Sources and References


 * facts are backed up with references to relevant articles
 * sources are thorough and relevant, speaking directly about the topic in the article
 * sources are current
 * the given sources are peer reviewed articles, they contain data from actual studies and seem to be reliable
 * all given links are functional

Organization and Writing Quality


 * article is easy to read with sufficient descriptions and background information
 * does not contain any obvious grammatical or spelling errors
 * article is broken into sections that reflect the major topic, also organized chronologically so that they are easy to follow and understand the succeeding sections

Images and Media


 * contains 3 images that depict hysteria and treatment methods
 * images contain sufficiently descriptive captions
 * no copyright violations
 * images in a layout that is convenient and does not impede text

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are no ongoing conversations, but there is evidence of previous improvement suggestions and nominations for Natural Sciences Good Articles
 * The article is rated C-class, and is a part of WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Medicine, and WikiProject Women's Health, as well as being a part of some course assignments
 * The article gives a lot of information about the beliefs and history of the condition, but less specific details about the women and how they relate to the topic. Our class is more centered on women and their relation to medicine

Overall Impressions

Laney Stearman (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is substantial and useful, containing a lot of information, but could be rounded out with additional viewpoints and information about women involved in hysteria diagnosis.
 * The article is thorough in most of the sections given, and gives sufficient details about each subject
 * The ending of the article seems incomplete because of the brevity of the explanation of changes to hysteria diagnosis and women's healthcare. The history given is thorough, but the more recent developments are not sufficiently covered.
 * I would say the article is well-developed so far, but could still use some minor editing and additional information