User:LeahLaska/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

 Article #1 : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

 Article #2:  Seneca Falls Convention

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

 Article #1:  I chose the article about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because I am interested in learning more about its development throughout the years. The DSM article matters because it informs readers about the the history of the DSM and what the DSM is used for. This helps people better understand what comes with a diagnosis/what is behind getting a diagnosis. My preliminary impression was that it was well organized; it showed the progression of the DSM over the years.

 Article #2:  I chose the Seneca Falls Convention article because it is applicable to HIST 111 and I was interested in learning about it more in detail. This article matters because it provides more information about an essential part of the history of feminism, especially first wave feminism. My first impression of the article was that the structure was easy to follow because of its chronologically organization.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

 Article #1: 

Lead section:

The lead section outlines the contents of the article with a reasonable amount of detail for readers to understand what will be addressed throughout the article.

Content:

The content is well-thought out- relevant and detailed. It covers a variety of important factors to understanding the DSM, including its history and its criticisms. Along with detailing criticisms, it could balance it out with what supporters think regarding said criticisms.

Evaluating Tone:

Article has a neutral tone. As said above, there might be a need for balance with the criticisms of the DSM presented in the article. With the overrepresentation of criticisms, it comes off as if there are only criticisms connected to the DSM.

Evaluating Sources:

All links seem to be working. The sources used are relevant and could be helpful for those reading the article.

Organization:

Well-organized (what was used before the DSM, the different versions of the DSM, and criticisms of the DSM). Writing quality is good, which makes it easy to follow.

Images:

Captions for the images could be more detailed (mostly around where the image came from and why it is relevant).

Talk page discussion:

There does not seem to be many discussions on the talk page and most of the discussions do not seem to be about improving the article. Although the talk page is not supposed to be used as a forum, this one seems to be. The article is a good article nominee.

Overall:

The article is very informative and, for the most part, cannot be used as a tool for self-diagnosis. This article could be a little more balanced in terms of how the DSM is viewed. The criticisms section of the article could be the most improved (I agree with the criticisms, but I also believe it is important to include more information about why the DSM may be supported as well).

 Article #2: 

Lead Section:

This article's lead section includes all the major factors that makes a good overview for readers; the introductory sentence was concise and it outlined the topics discussed within the article.

Content:

The content is relevant to the subject of the Seneca Falls Convention and a lot of different aspects of the convention are discussed. Although the category of this article contain similar articles about feminism, the article itself could have a section about first wave feminism or a mention of first wave feminism in the "Afterward" section.

Evaluating Tone:

Neutral tone.

Evaluating Sources:

The citation links worked and there was a fair amount of sources used to create the article, including some primary sources. Should all of the sources been either secondary or tertiary?

Sources seem to have been updated pretty recently (including previous ones from the 2000s and newer ones from within the past 5 years).

Organization:

The organization made for an easy read. As said earlier, the use of chronological order in the article (background, first day, second day...) was helpful.

Images:

Images were well captioned and helpful in enhancing parts of the article. Good placement of images as well.

Talk page discussion:

Take page seems to be well organized with topics pertaining to the upkeep of the article. However, all of the messages within the talk page are not from within the past 5-10 years. This could mean that there needs to be more of an update to the article- does it need a fresh pair of eyes or should it be left as it is (which is still a good article)?

Overall:

The article is rated pretty highly and it has high importance. Even with its high rating, is it up to date enough for it as a vital article?

The article is easily accessible to readers- thorough, detailed, but also clear and understandable.