User:Rainalaine/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

 * 1) Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, and there is nothing that distracted me from reading.
 * 2) Most of the information in the article, including statistical data, is from the early 2000's. The information could be slightly outdated, as mental awareness has increased in recent years. A lot of the writing in this article has a biased perspective, not neutral. Phrases such as "It is an issue..." or "With adjustments made to these circumstances..." indicate that the author is trying to unite an audience behind a specific goal, which doesn't maintain neutrality on a Wikipedia page. To use evidence and statistics to prove a point is better fit for a newspaper article or blog post. I also feel that the information could've been organized better. For instance, "Disparities in quality of mental health care" and "Disparities in success of mental health care" could be grouped into one category which could connect the success of mental health care to the quality of mental health care.
 * 3) The article is not particularly neutral, but it's not far from it. Although correct in terms of morality in many peoples eyes, the author is clearly advocating for mental health care reform. There are connections made between two points, but no distinct proof to validate them. For instance: "Sexuality plays a large role in the prediction of mental illnesses and overall mental health. Those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer have a higher risk of having mental health issues, most likely as a result of the continued discrimination and victimization they receive at the hands of others." This may be true, but there is no cited evidence to back up this statement, or derive that conclusion. In order to talk about mental health inequality, there needs to be an objective point of view that consists of data that is scientifically and mathematically proven correct linked to the societal effects of such. A view point that is underrepresented in this article is the treatment of mental health in the majority population. If the author states more statistics found in the majority population in comparison to the minority population, this could further his/her's argument.
 * 4) The links from many fo the citations work, as they either redirect to another wikipedia page or they are verifiable academic journals. The sources back up the claims in the article. Many of the sources that I viewed were not plagiarized in the article, and effectively summed up statistical date found in the secondary sources. The sources are neutral and most of them are sources that use data to arrive to a specific conclusion.
 * 5) There are no seen behind the scenes talks about this article. However, this is because it is a part of a student course at the University of Michigan. If expanded, this article could be very relevant in today's Wikipedia.

Link: Mental health inequality