User:Mldavis318/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: Avoidance response
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article was listed under the C-class articles, indicating that it needs to be improved upon. Additionally, I am interested in building upon my knowledge about avoidance responses and its role in anxiety disorders. I was also interested in reading more about the avoidance response after seeing it in a few of the readings that we had for class on 9/17.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It clearly discusses and explains what an avoidance response is and its purpose.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no discussion or description of the article's major sections (i.e., experiments, disorders, and neuropharmacology).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. It introduces information about classical conditioning and food aversion, which is not mentioned at all under the experiments content section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The first paragraph in the lead is somewhat concise and touches on important information. The second paragraph of the lead is overly detailed in terms of food aversion and animal responses. It would be better to move the classical conditioning and information about food aversion to the content section of the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead has a good introductory sentence that clearly explains the avoidance response. However, the lead does not discuss the article's major sections and it also has information that is not mentioned later in the article. It is overly detailed in the second paragraph of the lead and it is missing citations for the information that is present.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * There is little content available to the topic, however what is available (i.e., experiments, disorders, neuropharmacology) is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears as if it needs some updating, but I would have to look into it more to know for sure exactly what needs updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes. There needs to be content moved from the lead to the experiments section to further discuss classical conditioning and the food aversion. Additionally, the disorder section has information about certain anxiety disorders but does not mention anxiety itself. Other anxiety related disorders such as PTSD should also be mentioned in the disorders section. There should also be more content on the advantages and disadvantages of having an avoidance response from an evolutionary standpoint.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Content evaluation
Overall the content provided for avoidance response is weak and needs to be expanded upon in all of the sections. The content that is present is relevant to the topic, but there is a lot of missing information, and there is always more that can be updated when it comes to psychiatric disorders and neuropharmacology.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is a slight bias towards the avoidance response being disadvantage. There are no other biases that I could identify.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The advantageous viewpoint is slightly underrepresented and could be better represented if talking about the avoidance response from the evolutionary viewpoint and how the avoidance response is also beneficial to us as human beings.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article kind of positions the reader to think of the avoidance response as an overall bad or disadvantageous thing. Highlighting the advantageous aspects of the avoidance response would be helpful in reducing the bias and persuasion in the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the tone and the balance of the article is mostly neutral with a slight bias towards the disadvantages of having an avoidance response. The advantages should be talked about more, and through an evolutionary lens. This would make the article more neutral and less biased.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. There are several blocks of text that have no sources or citations for the information presented. Specifically, there is not a single citation in the section about disorders and there are only two citations in the entire section of experimentation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, most of the sources provided are not current sources, which excludes current literature on the topic of avoidance responses. Additionally, 1/4 of the sources provided are by the same author. However, there is literature from a variety of academic journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Almost all of the sources are before 1999. There is one source from 2011, but most of the sources are not current. There would need to be more current sources added.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are somewhat diverse. In the collection of authors there are women and hispanic/latino authors, which are both from historically marginalized or underrepresented individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes! I checked five out of the eleven links and they all took me to the corresponding author and article mentioned in the citation.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, there are many citations that are missing throughout the article, and the sources provided are not current or thorough. The articles do have a variety of authors and come from a variety of academic journals, but they lack in reflecting the literature that is available on the topic.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Throughout the article there were several grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. The article is broken down into experiments, disorders and neuropharmacology. There should be more content talking about evolutionary psychology plays into avoidance responses, as well as, more content about the advantages and disadvantages, and finally, more content on how learning connects with the avoidance response.

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, clear and easy to read, but is filled with several errors. Additionally, the article is not well organized and is missing sections of content that are relevant to the overall topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not really. The image available is of a Kellet's whelk that is not exhibiting an avoidance response. Why choose an image that is not exhibiting the avoidance response on an article about the avoidance response. Not a good image to use here. Honestly, it is more confusing than anything.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. The image is captioned well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No.

Images and media evaluation
The images that are provided in the article do not serve to enhance the understanding of the topic and do not really make sense as to why they are there. Besides that, the image is well captioned.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are currently no conversations taking place on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a C-class article, and is involved in several WikiProjects which include WikiProjects for physiology, psychology and animals. This article is also the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There isn't an ongoing discussion, so its hard for me to compare how it is talked about with how we have talked about it in class. However, based on what is written on the article, the same general and main ides are discussed both in class and on wikipedia. However, the evolutionary significance is not discussed as much on wikipedia as in class.

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations going on currently about the article, but the article is currently a part of multiple WikiProjects. The article is rated as a C-class, showing that it needs improvements.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall the article needs improvement but has good information to build upon.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information that the article has is good information. The article also has some important concepts which could be built upon.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by updating and adding more content,as well as by adding resources and adding citations where needed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
Overall this is a promising article that with some hard work, citations, content upgrading, changing the media, and proofreading could become a wonderful article on the avoidance response.

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: