User:Psychstudent7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Psychiatry - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it talks about the field I plan to pursue. This article matters because it gives an overview of psychiatry and all that it entails. My preliminary impression is that it seems very detailed and touches basis on everything having to do with psychiatry including the education required, subspecialties, history, and more.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article has a good lead section that includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes psychiatry. It gives a brief description of the article's major sections including clinical applications and treatment. The lead is concise and does not include any information that's not present in the article.

The article's content is relevant to the topic, and doesn't neglect any of the subtopics mentioned. The content is up-to-date and includes only relevant information that belongs. The article also addresses historical challenges with the field, including its misunderstanding of mental illness.

The article is neutral with no claims that are apparently biased nor overrepresented/underrepresented. The article does not try to persuade readers in any way.

All the information in the article is backed up by secondary sources. The secondary sources are thorough, current, and relevant. Additionally, there is a good mix of the types of sources used including many works published in academic journals. The links seem to be working (at least the ones I pressed).

The writing is clear, professional, and organized into sensible sections. I did not come across any grammar or spelling errors.

The article included 6 images. They were all well captioned, adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and were all laid out in a visually appealing way. The images did enhance the understanding of the topic, which is why I wish there were more. I think more pictures would have been beneficial, including an image of a commonly used drug treatment and an image of a famous diagnostic tool (e.g. DSM-5).

There are some conversations going on for this article- three to be exact. The first discussion was asking a general question about the topic, in which the author replied with this is a talk page to discuss the betterment of the article, and not a general forum. The second discussion that occurred was when someone asked why a section they added questioning the trustworthiness of psychiatric evaluations was removed and called vandalism. It was explained to them that the claim was not directly attributed to a reliable source. The third discussion that took place asked for citations for the in-patient treatment section, in which they were redirected to. This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Overall, the article is well written, well-developed, and has many strengths rather than weaknesses. The only weakness was the one referred to above in which more (around 2-3) images should be added to enhance the reader's understanding.