User:Sweetasy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is related to the course that I'm taking and talks about what we've learnt in class. So it can help me understand better by evaluating it, and i can detect some rights and wrong about this article. My first impression is that it looks well done and a lot of time and effort was put into it. It looks like they took the job seriously and did most of the things correctly.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: Yes, the article does have a lead sentence that explains in just a few simple words what Mind-body dualism is. A flaw to this lead section is that they don't talk about the major sections of the article in it. They're talking more about the general idea of what Mind-body dualism is. The lead is concise and gives you enough information to let you understand a little what the subject is about.

Content: Yes, all of the content and section of the article is relevant to the topic of the Wikipedia page. This content is up-to-date since it has last been edited on January 15th 2022, which is about less than a month ago.

Tone and balance: The article is in fact neutral. They have given us a section where you can debate for dualism, and against dualism, so there is no biased opinion on this article. No content seems to appear heavily biased. Both views of dualism are presented equally. For example, the debates, both for and against have each 6 arguments. The article is not trying to persuade the readers into becoming a dualist.

Source and references: Yes, most facts are backed up by a secondary source. The sources aren't fairly new, most of them are from the 1900's and a couple are from the 2000's. The sources are from different people, and some are even from people who are well known when it comes to history. Many links that were referred still work.

Organization and writing quality: The writing is beautifully spaced so not everything is clumped up. The divided the topics properly so they don't merge into another topic. The article does not have grammar mistakes from what I've seen.

Images and media: The article does include images that helps us understand better the topic of this article. The images are captioned, to explain what is the picture about. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk page discussion: There are many conversations going on in the talk page. Some are complaining about other people's work, some are trying to help others with the work. The article is rated as a B-class. The way that they discuss about it is more in a harsh kind of way. They are hostile towards each other and take things very personally. Many of them don't like to be told that they are wrong.

Overall impression: Overall, the article seem cleans and nicely done. Even though their might be some unnoticeable mistakes, it is still very well done. Their strengths is that it is visually pleasing to see this article, and that even though people are hostile towards each other, they still try their best to make the article as best as possible. The article is well-developed.