User:Tuf84485/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: Talk:Hypnosis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * reason I chose this article is because as someone who is majoring in a psychology major, it is important to me to understand exactly what hypnosis is and see people's perspectives/studies on hypnosis.

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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * To me, it seems concise, long, but concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes, last edit I found was in June 6th, 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * yes, I believe the "Hypnotism is quackery" section is not needed because to me it seems like an opinion, not a fact.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * yes, the quackery sections seems like a comedy/opinion paragraph
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * besides the quackery section, no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, it just tends to give information on what hypnosis is, where it came from, myths etc.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, all have links
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, most start at 2012
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes they do

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not from what I saw
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * besides the criticism section, there are no talks about it
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes, psychology, timeline traces, alternative medicine, skepticism, altered states of consciousness etc.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * there are more regulations and it's a bit tougher then what we discussed in class

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * pretty good, content is good and up to date
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * the amount of content there is and how there is a lot of proof to back up people's comments
 * How can the article be improved?
 * images and or more studies
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * it is well developed, I would also remove the criticism page as someone did since wikipedia is about giving facts not criticism (unless you do it privately to let know what you think about what they said)

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: