User:Tkk06/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: Psychiatry
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I an interested in psychiatry which sometimes may be overlooked or confused with clinical psychology

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
==== The lead includes precise definition of psychiatry. It also includes the domain psychiatry covers, but it is slightly detailed more than it should be. There is also the different titles the article will be covering. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Most of the content is relevant to the topic. This article tackles almost everything that needs to be known about psychiatry. Some information are taken from old sources (such as books from 1998) which may not be the best option since psychiatry is a scientific topic. Some information may be slightly skewed away from the main topic, but it doesnt hold a great effect since they are usually used to help understand the subtopic more.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is very informative. It is clear, direct and balanced. There is no favoritism to one view point more than the other. Evey subtopic or detail is given it's worth and importance.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article is heavily supported by reliable sources. These sources include scientific books, articles, and journals. They do work if you click on the link, but it may lag or take time to have the page opened. Most sources are very current. However, some may date back to 1998 and such which is too old to be reliable to a current scientific article

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is mainly clear and direct enough so that any person, regardless of background, can understand the topic, even if briefly. The grammar is correct and need, but some sentence structures may be too long and complex. The article would be even clearer if these sentences were shortened.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are not a lot of images, but each of them meets Wikipedia's copyright regulation. Some provide examples while others provide a visual aid to help understand the information in the article. The images were mainly included to the sides of the article and in a very small box. I t would be better if they slightly increase the size of the images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is B-rated. There seemed to be a lot of passive aggressiveness in the talk page and even sarcasm. This could have been easily avoided by being clearly stating an opinion without trying to provoke anyone.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is strong, reliable and well-developed. It may use some revision that can enhance the coherence and make it even easier to understand and inform.

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: