User:Maansak/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

 * 1) “Substance Abuse”

2.“Acupuncture”

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters to my research and what your preliminary impression of it was, and where it can be added


 * 1) I chose the substance abuse article because it covers what the acupuncture that I have been researching is used for, has a section about treatments that I see acupuncture or alternative medicine is not included in and would be a great place for me to add to the page. My preliminary impression of the article is that it seems thorough and has a good amount of evidence as there are data tables.
 * 2) I have chosen this article to evaluate because my topic is on acupuncture so this article is great because it covers the different aspects of acupuncture that are relevant to my research. I want to especially edit some of the more charged vocabulary such as calling it a fake medicine or other more opinionated language. I also think that I can add to the why Europeans might use acupuncture more or give a small sentence explanation of how acupuncture is covered as insurance and how that works is not covered. I think I can also add to the area where and how acupuncture can be used.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) First, the article has clear lead section starting with what substance abuse and then outlines the different classifications, signs and symptoms, screening and assessment, treatment, epidemiology, different drugs, and society and culture. These subheading give me an idea that this subject is being evaluated in many different ways, not just one. The information seems to be up to date and the writing is clear and professional. There are images that show evidence and use numbers to evaluate the harm of recreational drug use, maps of epidemiology, etc. Conversations in the talk page included opinions on substance abuse, how the wording was too polite, or like adding about specific populations of people. Overall, I think it could use some more perspectives from alternative medicine or subpopulations.
 * 2) First, the article is well organized and has a decent amount of information, backed by images that are cartoons and pictures of the objects themselves. The overall impression I get from the article is that it's not very scientific or backed by that much science as the first paragraph has stated that it's a pseudoscience and not very scientific. Other than that, it does a good job of giving history of the technique and how it can be used. It also has a section with citations stating why it's not considered a science or proven, which makes it more credible. Overall, I think it could use some more perspectives and the wording be slightly less charged.