User:Mjcorlew/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: Panic attack
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article discusses a symptom which may occur for individuals who have an anxiety disorder. Therefore, it relates directly to my class. In addition, the article is rated a C-Class on the quality scale.

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I consider it to be a good summary of the information

Lead evaluation
I think the Lead is very strong for this article. First, it summarizes the information in the article well, in the order that the information is given. Second, it does not include extra information that is not in the article itself.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, most of the sources were dated in the last 10 years. The oldest source I found was from 1995.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I could tell
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does address the difference in women and men, but does not say anything about ethnicity.

Content evaluation
For the most part, the content is spot on. Most of the sources are from the last 10 years. The content was relevant, and there did not seem to be an missing or unrelated content. The only problem I found was the article did not discuss the epidemiology of panic attacks for different races.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, mostly wrote in a scientific voice
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I could tell
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone was mostly scientific (neutral) and did not seem to be heavily biased. There were no words of absolutes used (always, never, etc.).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are from the last 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It seemed so
 * Check a few links. Do they work? 3/3 of the links I checked worked. I did notice that not all of the sources had links.

Sources and references evaluation
There were a large number of sources used to write this article. In addition, the sources were from a diverse spectrum of authors. The only issue I found was that some of the sources did not have links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes; science heavy in certain parts
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could tell
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, many headings and subheadings

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization was superb for this article. I did not find any issues/errors and it is well-organized

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? only two pictures; only one that I found to be enhancing of the topic
 * Are images well-captioned? Captions could be better
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The article was lacking in images (only had two) and the captions for the images were somewhat weak

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many are asking about sources. One person gave a bullet point list on ways to improve the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class. It is part of two WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It goes into the physiological reasons why a panic attack occurs in more depth than our class did.

Talk page evaluation
Overall, the talk page is amazing. It is obvious that people are making sure the article can be improved, specifically in cases of poor/no sources.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I think that article is well written and accurate. Sources, for the most part are spot on.
 * What are the article's strengths? Well organized, accurate information,good sources
 * How can the article be improved? Images, out of date statistics, statistics with no source
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is well developed but could still be improved

Overall evaluation
The article is very strong (for example, well-organized, accurate information, good sources). The article can be improved with better images, and out of date statistics being changed. Overall, I think the article is well-developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: