User:Oliviachung5/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mind–body dualism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I took a philosophy course last year where we investigated the mind-body distinction and theory of dualism, and I found it to be very interesting. Upon first impressions, I thought that the article was very well organized, but seemingly very long.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The first sentence of the lead section is relatively clear and provides a fairly good definition of mind-body dualism. However, I think some of the language could've been more specific or been explained better, as we must assume that those reading these articles have no prior knowledge of the concept. The lead gave a specific and clear context to what mind-body dualism is, providing names of philosophers, names of specific ideologies related to mind-body dualism, and more. However, I think there could have been more clear demonstration of what the article's main sections were. Overall, the lead is concise and clear and includes information that is present in the article, but could possibly use more specificity and approachable language.

Content: The content of the article is all relevant to the topic at hand. The content is up to date, and does not have anything missing or not belonging. The article does not include topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. Although the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, I feel that with a concept such as this, there is not much room to include discussions on underrepresented groups or topics, merely because this article is essentially reporting what philosophers and philosophical critics have said about mind-body dualism.

Tone and Balance: The article is extremely neutral. I did not detect any bias or over/underrepresented viewpoints, nor did I see any sort of persuasion. The article provided in depth sections regarding peoples' arguments both for and against mind-body dualism, allowing for education on both sides of the story, and giving the reader the chance to deduce their own opinions.

Sources and References: All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, all sources are thorough and relevant. There were 101 sources referenced in the works cited. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors with differing points of view--I believe that the large amount of sources used is illustrative enough of the diversity and variety of perspectives being showcased in this article. The links work and I believe that the sources used were the best sources available.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is very well written, does not have any grammatical or spelling mistakes, and is very well organized. The sequence of information is very easy to understand and smartly placed. Although some of the language was a bit difficult to understand at times, this is a scholarly article, so strong diction is to be expected.

Images and Media: Although not many images were used, the photos that were included were strategically placed and enhanced the article. The author included diagrams to visually represent concepts being discussed, and added illustrations drawn by philosophers like Descartes which further conceptualized philosophies being described. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulated and the display of photos are visually appealing.

Talk Page Discussions: The talk pages discussed some small variations of misinformation or potential biases. Most of all, I saw proposals regarding new arguments for dualism, or proposals on providing more information on certain sections of the article. The article is listed as a good article nominee, and is featured in 5 Wikiprojects (Philosophy: Metaphysics/Religion/Mind, Neuroscience, Alternative Medicine, Skepticism, and Vital Articles), and is C-Class in all of these projects.

Overall Impressions: The article was overall a very well done and educational article. I found that the article's strengths were in the ability to contextualize and explain rather complex and confusing concepts in a digestible manner. Additionally, I thought that the organization and inclusion of different points of view on the topic was extremely valuable. The article could improve on making sure there is equally/more evenly distributed information for each section-- some sections were rather short compared to others. I think that some language that was used could have been more approachable and universal, as well. I think this article is extremely well-developed in its content, and did an amazing job of not only providing the necessary information needed to understand the concept, but also provided some nuance and depth to the article.