User:Mar2203/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Psychiatry

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.)

I chose this article because I enjoy learning about social sciences and I do not know very much about psychiatry. I thought I might be able to learn a little something from this article.

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.)

= The lead section is very good at giving an overview about what this article will talk about. However it seems to be a little overly detailed as it discusses different places that mental diagnosis will come from. This article does a good job of showing many different things that are a part of psychiatry. It has sections about the history, different specialties, approaches, treatment types, and diagnoses. I would say that the article maintains a neutral tone it explains that because psychiatrists can work in many different setting things are going to be done with a bit of variety. This article contains lots of different articles and they included articles from groups in other countries which makes the information seem more valid and shows that it can be applied to people in the United States or Europe. The links I tried did all work. In the inpatient treatment section there is not very many citations to make the information as reliable as other sections. I found the article to be easy to read and find information from. All of the different topics covered can be easily found by looking for the bolded heading above the different passages. The passages are also broken down into sections to help readers find exactly what they are looking for. All of the images on this page have a description added to them except for a informational picture that shows the number of neuropsychiatric conditions per 100,000 inhabitants, however the photo itself gives the slight description I just mentioned so it may not be extremely necessary. All of the photos do relate to the topic and help show what the article is talking about. In the talk pages there was a lengthy discussion on if the diagnosis of psychiatrists should be 100% believed and that it should be put back into the article. There was also another conversation that seemed to be about psychiatrist prescribing drugs and bringing psychology into the article. Overall I would say this article is almost completely done! However there needs to be more citations in the in patient treatment section and I think the history section may be too much for the article. The article is good about covering all of the major topics about psychiatry without being biased. I think this article is very well written and with just a few tweaks it would help make the article a bit better! =