User:Mdwyier/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.


 * Name of article: Dissociation (psychology)
 * I chose this article due to limited information provided in the article, lack of activity on the Talk Page in recent years, and access to new information. Please see my comments in italicized text and my overall evaluations in bold text.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Did not review
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Arguably too long for a lead

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Considering content does not contain recent research, it may be suggested that content is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not particularly, though I can imagine ways it might be.

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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears to have decent amount of citation.
 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A few places could be tweaked for easier comprehension.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Good.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Depends on what is added to the topic, and it appears good for what exists.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversation has halted and is out of date by research standards
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of two WikiProjects and has a C-rating.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Incomplete.
 * What are the article's strengths? Foundation of research
 * How can the article be improved? Adding new research related to dissociation, treatment, and measurements.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped

The page is laid out for foundational use to build on and increase the article's strength in several areas, such as media, current research, treatments, and measurements.
Mdwyier (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)