User:Soft Sweets R/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? Psychoanalysis and music

(Provide a link to the article here.) Psychoanalysis and music

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This is a link which I have found in the subcategory of Academic Discipline Category, Musicology, recommended by this exercise. Among 33 subcategories, "Musicology" immediately catches my attention. Even though I am not having a major related to music or psychology, also I have no talents in learning both of them. But I have been a piano teacher for 5 years, teaching people with disabilities to learn piano. Being a girl who learn piano and teach piano, through this process, I have recognized the power of music. It is a tool of communication which can transfer ideas, express emotions, and even influence other's attitude or perspectives without any words and language. I have noticed that my family members would feel delighted when I played music at home. I also noticed that my students have become more cheerful after years of piano lessons. I can see their smiles when we have piano lesson every Saturday. So I briefly studied in a research project about music therapy during high school. But I mainly focused on the economical relationship between music therapy and people with disabilities and the effectiveness of this therapy. I have no academic understanding of the principles. So I picked this topic in Wikipedia to have a brief understanding of the relationship between psychoanalysis and music.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

At the beginning of this article, there is a notion about the need of rewritten of the lead section. The first sentence of the lead section might not be a good beginning. It starts with a sentence telling the power of music instead of directly pointing out the two main topic of the article: psychoanalysis and music. Even though it mentions about how music "allows us to see beyond a typical conversation or thought process" which might imply to psychoanalysis, but it is hard for a reader who might not have any psychological background to relate to this. Moreover, the lead section is too short. Not much information is provided. It is hard for the reader to know the significant part which might be covered in this article.

Content:

The content of this article is great. It involves relevant and useful information about different sections of the article. It is hard to identify whether the content is up-to-date, but I think this content is well-organized.

Tone & Balance:

The tone of the article is relatively neutral. Take the example in the section of History when Sigmund Freud is being described as the first attributor of psychoanalysis and music. It mentioned both "ambivalent" sides of Freud in the section, describing how he enjoyed and being inspired from music and how he self-defining as a "ganz unmusikalisch". Moreover, in the section, others' opinion and suspicion about Freud's intention of studying music is also mentioned to show more perspectives about the topic. However, in the later sections, "Theories and Therapeutic Techniques" and ''Case Studies and Real Life Experiences", only the positive effects and cases studies have been mentioned. I do not know whether there might be negative outcomes or findings and disadvantages being discovered among all the experiences that have been done on psychoanalysis and music. But when I, being a reader, read through these sections, I would be curious about whether music therapy is so effective in treating patients with mental illness because of all those benefits and advantages that are mentioned in this article (however music therapy is not often used in the treatment of mental illness). Overall, this article gives me the feeling that music therapy (psychoanalysis and music) is really helpful and effective in treating patients. I have the feeling of being persuade to believe that music therapy is good and efficient therapy without much supportive and critical evidences.

Sources & Reference:

The sources in this article is real, relevant, and up-dated. Even though there are many "old sources" from psychologist like Sigmund Freud, But those sources provide necessary information of history and theory of psychoanalysis and music. Also, the newest source in the reference list is a source from Newberger Jill, published in 2020.

Organization & Writing quality:

Good quality writing.

Images & Media:

Only one image is posted on this article. It is a photo of the musicologist Max Graf, a torchbearer of the topic. This image is relevant to the topic and also correctly being posted in the History section while introducing Max Graf. However, this picture has not provide helps for the understanding of this article. For copyright of the image, the image does followed the regulations of Wikipedia's copyright as it is a work in public domain. However, the editor should add a tag of United States Public Domain to indicate this.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are only two comments in the talk page. The first one is a question about whether this article is "even needed". Some editors doubted that no-one would edit this page into a "worthwhile " article. However, in 2020, this article is assigned into the "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment". Students started to edit this page, which might imply that there is high possibility that the information in this article would largely improved in the future.

Overall Impression:

I think this is a good article for a brief understanding of the relationship between psychoanalysis and music therapy. Also it can be a good introduction for anyone who is interesting in music therapy or psychology and music as the writing and information is easy to understand for any readers even without psychological or musical background. However, the information provided in the article is not sufficient and it does not provide enough information on both sides of the therapy. Only positive outcomes, experiences, and advantages are mentioned in the article. This might be a result of lacking information in the field or the problem of this article.