User:Ngwinn/Evaluate an Article

Ngwinn (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Which article are you evaluating?
(Kirkbride Plan - Wikipedia.)

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I recently took a class highlighting psychiatric history and its societal impacts. For many history scholars, the Kirkbride plan marks a notable switch in psychiatric care and housing for the mentally ill/inept.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

-The article's lead section's introductory sentence clearly and accurately describes the article's topic. It accurately defines what the Kirkbride Plan is, who the founder was, and the specific time span. The lead accurately reflects what will be covered in the rest of the article. Although a bit more info on the philosophy and basis would've been nice. Also, separating the brief information on the architect and philosophy would've been good. Other than that, the lead provides a brief overview of each subtopic covered in detail in the rest of the article. The lead does not disclose any information that is not further explained in the rest of the article. Finally, the lead is concise yet informative; however, more detail on the present existence of the Kirkbride asylums and the National Registry would've created a more complete feel for the lead.

Content:

The article's content stays strictly to the topic at hand. Based on the historical external links listed at the end of the article, only one of the four listed a date as early as two years ago. The works cited page comprises of various books with a set release date. Arguably, this article could've included more information on what the Kirkbride Plan was in direct response to under the basis and philosophy portion of this article. More information in the Decline and Phasing out portion would've made this article more complete.

Tone and Balance:

-The article does not convey a stance that leans either way and insists on being neutral. In any portion of the article, are there any clear or subtle claims that are made for or against the Kirkbride Plan. Viewpoints via patient journal accounts could've been added to suffice the fringe/minority viewpoint. Again, the article is strictly informational, as it does not attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another.

Sources and References:

The facts in the article are all backed by reliable sources, and all of the links are usable. Most of the links span at least 3 to 5 years in the past, which raises the question of how current the sources are. The source authors are diverse but lack the historically marginalized viewpoint. I think that more journal entries and books from the height and decline of the Kirkbride plan would've created a more complete product.

Organization and Writing Quality:

-The organization of the article gives an easy read for anyone who comes across it. No grammatical errors were seen, which lets the reader know that the authors have adequately proofread their content. The sections further give way to an organized flow.

Images and media:

-Although there are photos of the layout of the Kirkbride plan, photos of Thomas Kirkbride, and the general plot points of the asylum's location, given that this is a historical article about such an important development in psychiatric history, there should be many more photos. Historical photos act as a window to the past, and to ensure that the reader has an accurate visualization of the information provided, photos are a crucial tool. All images, however, do adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion:

- The talk page for this article comprises mostly of corrections or additions of dates, the addition of some asylums that weren't mentioned in the article that the editor thought held some significance, the true originality of Thomas Kirkbride and his plan, and some incomplete citations.

Overall Impressions:

-This article is listed under Wikipedia's "good article criteria." The article's main strength is that it gives good initial information on the Kirkbride Plan if one is looking for a quick fact. It could be improved by being more detailed in some areas and giving more history on how the Kirkbride plan was the face of the rise of the therapeutic asylum. With that, I feel as though the article is slightly underdeveloped, missing some much-needed information and visual media. ~