User:Nayebean/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Psilocybin mushroom

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because im really iterested in magic mushrooms. ive always heard how bad they are up until recently when i watched a documentary on psychedelics. I wanted to learn more about magic mushrooms so this is the perfect opportunity to talk about it and do some research on it.

Lead section
The lead starts us off with a somewhat strong introduction that gives a balanced description of what the article discussed. the lead doesnt talk about the effects but it is a section in the article. i feel like it shouldve done that so that we know exactly what the article might cover. but i will say the lead covered most sections discussed in the article. i think the lead was pretty good becouse it wasnt overy informative but i couldve been a bit better.

Content
The content in this article is accurately relevant to the topic. I would say although the content mostly covers an dgives a great decription on the topici was hopingthere was more information on the clinical research section. The content for this article does contain the history and other underrepresented topics such as the effects, legality, composition and much more of psilocybin mushrooms.

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance of this article was neutral. it did not really cover anyting for it to be persuaded in anyway. i dont feel as if though the viewpoint were overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
All the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The sources do actively reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current up to 2020. there can be better sources of information for use but overall most of the sources work and are valid sources of information for the public.

Organization and writing quality
This article was well written. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. As far as the organization I feel like it was organized pretty well for an article. It looked like any normal article. The sections were informational and organized good.

Images and Media
- The images in this article are pertty good. there is an image for every section of the topic which i liked and the images correlate to the topic the article is about. The captions for the pictures were well and properly described. All images were also up to part with the Wikipedias copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion
In the talk page tehre have been discussions on how the article was not written to its best potential. some editors alo inputed that some of the articles use as sources were misinformation. The publishers or editors of the artcle too these inputs as critical critisism and went over what they did and recorected it. i felt like this was good because it helps the author write better and it helps the audience gain accurate knowledge on the topic of the article.

Overall impressions
my overall impression of the article is neutral. i dont really believed i gained as much knowledge as i was hoping but this article was pretty informative. i would say that this article could use some more clinical research and more information on the history. I do like the fact that it wasnt overly informative and did not go off topic. i would say that this is somewhat a well developed article.