User:Twarlick3/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: Amygdala
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Because as Mr. Youngstrom mentioned, you quite literally cannot get through a psychology course without discussing the amygdala.

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 does include a introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. It is possible it could be more concise. The lead gives a very broad glance at the major sections included in the article. While the lead addresses many of the major structural and functional sections, it does not really introduce the developmental or neuropsychological sections. The lead does not include any information that is not present or at least similarly discussed within the article. The lead is relatively concise, although I think more room could be given to the function and neuropsychology and less to the origins of the word and translations.

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
The article's content does appear to be up to date and relevant. A quick check of the sources does reveal that there are relatively few articles cited from within the past five years (which I have commonly encountered as the benchmark for "new" articles within psychology research and courses). However, the amygdala has long since been an interest of psychology research, and therefore much research exits on the topic.This may account for the lack of more recent scholarly articles referenced within the Wikipedia article.

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
The article appears fairly neutral, although this varies some within the functional sections. The emotional learning section uses some strong language that reads slightly persuasive or causal. Also, some of the terms used seem outdated or unscientific in nature... for example "fear memories," could be better written as "memories associated with fear." I am not sure that anyone in the academic community would consider any memory to be fear in and of itself given that it is an emotion. While I don't necessarily think viewpoints are underrepresented, I do think the reward, fear, bipolar disorder and aggression sections need further development.

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
One of the oldest talk conversations is in regards to citations, and it appears that much progress has been made in that area. However, more is needed such as in the second and third paragraphs of hemispheric specialization. The sources appear to reflect the literature, although I think it is possible that there is more recent research available. I think more citations could be used within the anxiety and aggression sections. The links that are available and that I tried worked.

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 relatively concise in each of its subsections, however given the wide range of functions of the amygdala the page is quite long. I did not notice any prevalent or recurring grammatical errors. I quite liked the organization of the page, with structure and development coming before the functional sections. However, I was quite surprised at how small the aggression section of the article was.

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
The images are primarily used to help conceptualize the location and anatomy. The images do appear to be well-captioned. I question whether so many images are really needed though, given that most are highlighting the same thing - location within the brain. The subdivisions image placed beside the lead is not cited. The images present are laid out in a fairly pleasing way.

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
Much of the conversations going on behind the scenes are outdated, and not from this decade. Those talks mainly regard citations and including further material. The few more recent conversations have been regarding the images, validity of information, hidden bias and persuasion language, and well as modifications to links. This articles is part of WikiProjects on Anatomy, Animal anatomy, Neuroscience and Psychology. While we have not addressed the amygdala specifically in detail so far in this class, I have discussed it thoroughly in all of my other psychology and neuroscience courses. Wikipedia definitely discusses it in a more broad and overlying sense. There do appear to be some issues with causal language, which have been fixed, but then again that also happens in Psychology courses.

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 provides good generalized information on the amygdala. Many of the functional properties of the amygdala are present and represented. Generally the article could probably do with some updating, and the inclusion of more recent research. A further avoidance of persuasive or causal language/tone is necessary as well. The article is overall well developed, but with subsections which could certainly do with further information and/or updating.

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: