User:Snqadri/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bulimia nervosa

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm interested in the topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The article begins with a brief but complete sentence of what Bulimia Nervosa is, it creates the baseline for what the subject is without delving too deep. There is just enough to give a very surface level of what the article is about.
 * I suppose so, within the body of the lead paragraph (really at the end but still within the lead) a content table is included that goes over the the body of the article, subheadings, and additional. information included within the article such as related topics, this is mentioned in the heading labeled "see also"
 * Yes, it includes brief information that does not appear again in the article in the form of presenting three somewhat similar/related disorders in which two of them are not mentioned again. The two disorders are binge-eating disorder and Klein-Levin syndrome.
 * The lead is not concise, it gives a pretty good overview of the disorder, however it can be edited down to exclude information that is not immediately relevant. For example, the deeper, more complex relationship with bulimia and narcissistic parents isn't really information that should be included in the lead but rather it should be introduced with more relevancy in the causes section.

Content


 * Yes, the article does a good job on staying in line within the immediate parameters of the subject at hand.
 * About half of the references used for the article are from 2010 and beyond but that leaves another half that date as far back as 2000. For example, a reference for the diagnostic criteria's for bulimia is from the 2000 edition of the DSM. The article needs serious updates in some cases.
 * I don't think any of the included content is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 * Actually the article does not have any mention of underrepresented populations which is crucial to subjects like the current and ongoing history of medical disorders, so no it does not address wiki's equity gap, and it actually could use additional information.

Tone and Balance


 * The article itself is fairly neutral and straight to the point, no outright biases.
 * The section on treatment is leaning towards one side a little bit, by about a hair, however the statements made are verified by solid sources. The wording is probably the issue here, a little rewrites and it would come off as more in line.
 * There isn't really a solid mention of fringe viewpoints, the only thing that comes to mind is the brief interlude with hypnotherapy (which can be seen as controversial/on the fringe) however, it is introduced as just another treatment option out there. There are no opinions regarding the treatment itself.
 * There is no real persuading going on, just talk of the disorder (not that is won't benefit heavily from some editing).

Sources and References


 * No, all the facts are not backed up by sources, and I have started making notations in my sandbox of where proper citations are needed.
 * Yes, most of the sources that are used are thorough.
 * About half of the sources are from the year 2010 and beyond, so the article needs major updating with the references section.
 * There really is no mention of marginalization in relation to the disorder anywhere in the article and from my overview of the reference section it seems to be the case there as well.
 * The sources in terms of their validity are excellent, no random articles or websites here, they just need to be updated desperately.
 * I checked ten, they all work.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is easy to read, and it is clear, but I think it could do with some structural changes.
 * No spelling errors that I could find and I couldn't flag. any grammatical errors, that isn't to say that it couldn't benefit from better grammar in general.
 * The article itself is relatively well organized in terms of the major subheadings, but the organization of the sentences structures and paragraphs could use some work.

Images and Media


 * I think the image and figure choice are well thought out and they help in providing relevant visual aids to the written information.
 * They are adequately captioned, they could use more robust captioning but the exiting ones do the job. They are concise.
 * Yes, they adhere to copyright regulations.
 * They are laid out in a way where they are accessible when needed as a reference, I don't know about visually appealing per se.

Talk Page Discussion


 * I don't see any discussions about the article under the Talk feature.
 * There is no available rating.
 * N/A

Overall Impressions


 * The article itself does what it needs to do in that it provides an adequate understanding of Bulimia Nervosa as a topic.
 * The article isn't really string but it is far from poor, it does what you would expect from a wiki article, which is learn baseline (at minimum) of a subject at hand, and then some.
 * It needs to be updated, both with its references and with its relevance to the standards of today like including information about possible marginalization and information about underrepresented subjects within the subject.
 * The article could stand to be fleshed out into a stronger and better work grammatically with its organization and with further information on certain sub-topics. In some areas a subject is introduced with a sentence or two and then dropped, the article could use more substance and better syntax.