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?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Childhood Trauma

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it is a topic that correlates with where i want my career to lead me. It is my aspiration in life to work with soldiers, veterans, or anyone affected by war. I want to be able to help people over come the effects war so often has upon them. The article i've chosen matter because it speaks about traumatic experiences such as the causes, the signs and symptoms, and all the other factors that such experiences can have on human beings. my preliminary impression of the article is that it is very thorough.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, it does contain an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The introductory sentence describes the effects that traumatic experiences can have on a person and how these events lead to very serious consequences for this individual.

• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes it does.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) no, the lead goes on to include information that would further explain the topic or detail points that would further strengthen the paper.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise yet over detailed. The lead includes information that strengthens the topic and introductory sentence.

Content

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes. the article content includes multiple examples of trauma, it includes how to deal with trauma, with symptoms and how to avoid said symptoms, secondary symptoms and topic, and plus the reputable sources.
• Is the content up-to-date? the content is not up-to-date, it was last updated around 2005. the content does not include many of the new information and treatments [i.e., conventional or nonconventional] found out about this particular topic.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no content is missing, i am sure that there is content that was omitted because it did not correlate with the topic.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topic. the topic of traumatic experiences is something that is very prevalent in todays world.

Tone and Balance

• Is the article from a neutral point of view? yes, it does have a neutral point of view. the article is simply stating facts while also relaying information that is pertinent to the topic.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? there are no claims that seem heavily biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the viewpoints that are underrepresented are the points that review how trauma permanently damage you.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? no, they are not classified as minority or fringe.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, the article simply want to inform the reader of the affects of traumatic experiences.

Sources and References

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, the sources are reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, the sources are very thorough and support the topic while reflecting.
• Are the sources current? no, as the article was published in 2005 so the sources tend to have a later date then when the article was published.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? no, a majority of the sources were written by a very singular spectrum of authors i.e., doctors and more doctors. the article does not include historical information.
• 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.) yes, there are many better and up-to-date articles that would take this article to a whole new page.
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes, the links within the article work.

Organization and writing quality

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no it does not.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, the article is broken down into sections. the sections help control the flow of information very well.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no, the article is outdated in the way that it does not include images but it does include graphs and figures to help with the topic.
• Are images well-captioned? no images were included.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images were included.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images were included.

Talk page discussion

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? the conversations were mainly about the different information that could be used if the article were updated.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? yes, the article falls beneath the wikiproject surrounding trauma.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? well, this topic has never been discussed within a classroom setting. When wiki discusses it, they authors of the article are very in depth.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status? the article is strong for its published date.
• What are the article's strengths? the strengths would have to fall beneath the authors and how distinguished they are.
• How can the article be improved? the article could be updated.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is underdeveloped due to the fact that this article has not been updated.