User:SDoH20/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.


 * Name of article: (link) Socioeconomic status and mental health
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because the class I am doing the Wikipedia assignment for is social determinants of health and we discussed socioeconomic status in class as an example of a social determinant of health. This article talks about socioeconomic status' influence on an individual's mental health and works to explain why that is the case. Therefore it discusses the impact of a social determinant on an aspect of health (mental), making a relevant article for my class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, though I think a bit more on the debate between the two theories would be good in the introduction. A brief summary of why people prefer the social causation theory might be good, but otherwise I think the overview of the sections is good.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead mentions the relationship between socioeconomic status and mental health and the article focuses on explaining why those with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to suffer from mental illness and never mentions evidence of the relationship, so I would say that the Lead includes information not in the article since the relationship itself is never described outside the Lead. I think it would be helpful to discuss the relationship more in the article itself like in statistics showing that that relationship is the case all over the world.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead seems good overall, though it might help to add a short section on why the social causation theory is the preferred theory. It is concise, clear, and relevant overall.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content seems up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As I mentioned above, I think it would be good to have more on the existence of the relationship between socioeconomic status and mental health rather than just mentioning that the relationship exists. It would be better if there were statistics and research mentioned that showed that relationship. If there are more recent, relevant studies on the topic, I would include more of those as well, since all of studies discussed are at least about two decades old (though the references for the article do include content from more recent years). The debate section could be improved since it mainly gives a couple sentences of overview and describes the thoughts expressed in one book. I think it would be better to consider more content there. There could also be a better explanation of the impact of SES on mental health than was given for the social causation theory. Additionally, though schizophrenia is the most important, there could be more discussion of other mental illnesses. There is no content that doesn't belong that I found.

Content evaluation
The content that was present was typically valuable information and relevant to the topic, though there could have been greater explanations in some spots. I would include more information on the relationship between SES and mental health by supporting the relationship described with statistics and research prior to considering why that might be the case. More recent studies would be useful and the debate section could be expanded. Other mental illnesses could be taken into consideration. The section on schizophrenia specific was very relevant and a good addition.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the view that social causation is the best theory is discussed too much in the debate section and I think that mental illnesses besides schizophrenia are underrepresented in what is mentioned in the article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems neutral. The editors use phrases like "Many researchers argue..." to demonstrate what are the professional opinions of experts in the field and the editors themselves do not seem to provide their own opinions on the topic or try to sway anyone to support a particular theory. The article presents the facts and what the researchers believe, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions based on the information provided. I think the debate section contains too much of the thoughts represented in one book for a section that is meant to be on what experts overall belief to be true.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The facts seem to be backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem thorough, though as I said before, information related to the relationship itself would be useful.
 * Are the sources current? There are current sources as well as older ones, though the older ones are very relevant to the topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources appear to be good. There are a lot of journal articles referenced, which is good. The sources seem thorough for what is covered thoroughly in the article itself. Many of the sources are current and the older sources should be included because they are very relevant to what is covered in the article. The links that I checked worked fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is mostly well written with some minor problems
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article has a handful of errors in grammar and spelling.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized into sections though some information doesn't necessarily belong in the section that it's in (such as the debate section containing a lot on the thoughts of one book).

Organization evaluation
There are errors in both spelling and grammar, but the problems with the writing of the article seem to be minor enough that the reader can still tell what is meant by a misspelled word or bad sentence. The article is broken down well, though some sections should have information removed from them or moved to another section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes no images
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media included in this article.

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 talk page mentions that there was a proposal to delete the article from Wikipedia. The editors discuss what can be done to make the article better and if making it better is worth it. They discuss if the article topic has enough notability to be worth saving.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated C mid and is part of the psychology and sociology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses this topic from a mental health perspective (we have not gotten that specific yet) and it refers to two theories as to why the relationship exists and we haven't discussed in depth the idea that the health might be impacting the SES since so far we have been focused on the SES impacting the person's health.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page discusses whether the article is notable enough to be saved and the editors discuss the possibility of giving the article a better name (which has been done since the deletion conversation occurred) and fixing its main problems. The article is rated as moderately important and has a C grade of how well done it is. The article goes much deeper into the topic than we have considered yet in class and is focused on mental health as opposed to health in general.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems to be pretty good overall.
 * What are the article's strengths? The articles strengths are in providing good overviews of two prominent theories that explain the relationship between SES and mental health (with different directions of causation for the two theories).
 * How can the article be improved? The debate section of the article could provide a better overview of the overall debate, the article could include evidence of the relationship's existence in the first place, it could be copy-edited for grammatical and spelling errors, and it could consider other mental illnesses in greater depth (though schizophrenia is of significant importance to this particular topic).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped in some areas, but I think it is relatively well-developed. The additions I mentioned above would be good to add, but I don't see significant issues with the article as a whole.

Overall evaluation
This article seems neutral, well-researched, and overall well-written. There are some content holes that could be filled like evidence of the relationship between SES and mental health and the debate section could be improved, though what content is present seems relevant. The theories are explained well overall. Most sections are good and may require an extra sentence or two in some spots to improve, though they are fine overall. Some minor errors in spelling and grammar need to be fixed. Relevant images and media should also be added.

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: