User:Laurenharper02/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

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

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

LGBTQ psychology#References

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I love learning about psychology. I also am part of the LGBTQ+ community, so learning more about it was an interest to me. My initial reaction to this article was that this information should be shared and I am so glad people are taking time to edit it.

Evaluate the article

When I first open the article, I noticed that the lead sentence was concise and it encapsulated what I thought this article was going to be about. Now, if I was looking at the first paragraph as a whole, I would make some changes. It does not mention that there is going to be a whole section talking about the community's mental health and it does not mention that it is going to talk about LGBTQ+ experience in school. I feel that an article about LGBTQ+ psychology would have some mention of mental health, so it should mention that in the leading paragraph. Overall, the leading paragraph is concise and does not have any details that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. After reading the article, I do believe that the content is relevant to the topic. This content is up to date. I do not feel that this article is missing content. It is talking about one of WIkipedia's equity gaps. I was thinking that the section titled "gender" sounded a little bit opinionated, but they cited a source, so I feel as though my conclusions might have been wrong. The article is a very well written, heavily cited piece of information. The article's strength was going into detail and spreading awareness on topics with facts to back it up. There are pictures, they did not add much to the article, but it makes it nicer to look at. I feel like this article is slightly underdeveloped because new information in this era would contribute heavily.

Some additional notes from Dr. Vetter

One of the most visible problems with this article is that it isn't written in a Neutral Point of View. This is evident from the banner or "tag" at the very beginning of the article that states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" INterestingly, this banner was added in 2017 and has still not been removed, which means the article has needed some attention to the issue of neutrality for a long time.

In addition to the issue with NPOV, another editor has noted on the talk how the article lacks a historicval perspective. Though this has been added to a degree, there are still updates to be made to the section on History.

Another issue I noticed was that the references are a bit dated. This is a rapidly changing/dynamic field and topic, and the Wikipedia article that should have the most current references available.