User:Npodstawska/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.


 * Anxiolytic: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiolytic )
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it talks about the types of medications that are used to treat anxiety (to decrease anxiety).

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? --> Yes and no. It does describe what an anxiolytic is and what it is used for. This helps the reader understand what the topic of the article is. However, the article is mostly about the different types of anxiolytic medications, and the lead only has one sentence about this. The sentence explains that anxiolytics have been used to treat anxiety, yet, it doesn't say that there are many of them with varying properties.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? --> Yes. The lead mentions anxiolytic medications, which is a major section of the article, and it briefly mentions that there are other therapies used to treat anxiety, which is also a major section of the article towards the end.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? --> Yes. The lead has a sentence that mentions propranolol and oxprenolol as being medications that are not anxiolytics, yet are used to treat the physical symptoms of anxiety. This information does not show up later in teh article sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? --> The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? --> Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? --> Yes, because it has been checked and updated in 2020. However, the latest reference is from 2016. I think there could be more articles or references that are newer. Many of the references are also from articles in the 1900s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? --> Some citations are needed for information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? --> Yes, because mental health (which includes anxiety) is a fairly new topic that has become popular and more known in our times.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? --> Yes. The author does not take a stance for any particular way of treatment.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? --> No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? --> No. However, the section on other treatments could have been longer. Though I do understand that the article itself is about anxiolytic medications.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? --> No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? --> Most of them are. However, there are a few claims that need citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? --> I think some claims could have had more available literature to back it up.
 * Are the sources current? --> Yes and no. There are no sources that were written within the last 4-5 years, although I think we probably have had more studies done and could incorporate more current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? --> I think yes. I see some of the sources are from different countries (written in different languages most likely). This could offer more diverse stances.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? --> Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? --> Yes, but it could have used more simple language. A few places had very scientific language that was hard to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? --> None that caught my eye
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? --> Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? --> The conversations were mostly about the information that was included in the article. Many argued about what was anxiolytic and what wasn't. There were also conversations about what should be included and what should be removed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? --> It was part of Pharmacology and Psychology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? --> We haven't really talked about medications to treat anxiety yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? --> I think it is pretty good. I would change the language structure (ie. simplify the language a bit) so that regular people looking for information could more easily understand it.
 * What are the article's strengths? --> There are people in the talk page discussing it and there are edits to the article.
 * How can the article be improved? --> Probably updating the sources to have more current sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? --> I'd say it is prety 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: