User:Sunflower Fields/sandbox

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: Anxiety dream
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I found it on the C-Rated List and I thought this article was an interesting topic.

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, mostly. The only exception I noticed was that there is no sentence relating to the major section of "Pre-Freudian explanations."
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is clear and concise. The Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, with the exception of "Pre-Freudian explanations."

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Hard to tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do believe some aspects could have been expanded upon.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic; however it comes across as a little sparse. It feels as though it should be expanded upon more. There does not appear to be any source after 2010. One may assume this is because the school of thought has not changed since then. It would be nice if there was a major heading for current literature. In fact, it would be nice if they talked about how our understanding of anxiety dreams have changed throughout time. The author touches on this when talking about Pre-Freudian explanations and Freudian Theory, but not much after that.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? I believe the article leans more towards the Freudian view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The author states that anxiety dreams stem from childhood trauma as fact, when I believe this is correlation.  It is possible the author is trying to convey that is how Freud would view it as it is found under the major heading of Freudian Theory; however, this could be made clearer to the reader.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It is possible that the Freudian view is overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? They do claim general anxiety is an effect of anxiety dreams; this is a correlation and not a causal link.

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe that this article leans a little more towards the Freudian point of view. The author states that anxiety dreams stem from childhood trauma as fact, when I believe this is correlation. It is possible the author is trying to convey that is how Freud would view it as it is found under the major heading of Freudian Theory; however, this seems unlikely as he cites an article from 2008 that found a correlation between childhood trauma and dream anxiety in patients with Borderline Personality Disorder. The author claims that general anxiety is an effect of anxiety dreams; this is a correlation and not a causal link.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? While the author does cite what he is saying by reliable secondary sources, I do not believe that all the sources say what he claims they say (re: insulating causal relationships where only a correlation exists.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, the sources do not reflect the available literature at this time. I think there could have been more sources used.
 * Are the sources current? No, the sources are not current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Breakdown of sources:

1) Book - 1987 - used for majority of references

2) Book -1988

3) Journal Article - 1967 - Studies in Philology - used for Pre-Freudian explanations

4) Journal Article - 2008

5) News article reporting on a journal article - 2010 - this is used to back up the claim that those dealing with distressing dreams tend to have general anxiety more often, but it is not mentioned that this is based off of two studies. Also, why not just use the original journal articles as the source?

6) Book - 1993 (textbook) - discussing treatment

7) Journal Article - 2006 - discussing treatment

Sources and references evaluation
While the author does cite what he is saying by reliable secondary sources, I do not believe that all the sources say what he claims they say (re: insulating causal relationships where only a correlation exists). The sources may have been thorough at the time of publishing, but many of the references are dated. In addition, there are a limited amount of resources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise.. There is some fluff language used that could be removed.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do not believe so.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe this article is well-organized.

Organization evaluation
This article is well organized. This article is concise, but perhaps is not so clear. I think some major points that are missing is how current literature views anxiety dreams and/or how different theories have different interpretations. The author misrepresents some literature and I believe that if the article was expanded upon, it would be clearer.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images provided.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images provided.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images provided.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images provided.

Images and media evaluation
There were no images provided.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I have not seen any conversation about how to represent the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as C-Class on the quality scale.  It is part of WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I do not recall discussing this topic in class.

Talk page evaluation
I have not seen any conversation about how to represent the topic. The article is rated as C-Class on the quality scale, and is part of WikiProject Psychology. I have not seen any discussion on this topic on Wikipedia, nor do I believe it was discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article was well organized and concise.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by unpacking ideas more and communicating clearly what the sources found (not exaggerate or make inferences).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is rated as C-Class on the quality scale. The strengths of this article was that it was well organized and concise. This article can be improved by unpacking ideas more and communicating clearly what the sources found (not exaggerate or make inferences). This article is underdeveloped.

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: