User:Sam kwok berkeley/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: Transgenerational trauma
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article focuses on a need that my organization aims to alleviate. It discusses the idea itself, the history of diagnosis, and explains historical events that are linked to people effected by transgenerational trauma.

Lead

Guiding questions

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, it provides a short explanation on what transgenerational trauma is and a brief summary of how it can come to be.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No, this lead paragraph is only 2 sentences short and the second sentence seems vague and provides little information on the section it is supposed to describe (criticisms).
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: Not really, it just provides a brief summary of the topic.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Concise, it actually seems a bit too concise.

Lead evaluation

I think that the lead could be a little bit stronger. While the first sentence provides a good explanation/summary about what transgenerational trauma is, it fails to explain what the major sections of the article is, lacks citations, and is rather short. The last sentence " This field of research is young, and its findings are controversial." is supposed to give a brief explanation about a section in the article, criticisms, but does not describe what the criticisms are, what specific research they are talking about, and lacks citations, suggesting that the author might be biased towards this topic.

Content

Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes and no. While the information is all relevant, the author seems to be fixated on one specific example, the intergenerational trauma of black Americans, or more specifically racism. While this is important information, it seems that the author may be leaving out other information that that is relevant to transgenerational trauma.
Is the content up-to-date? : Yes, the citations are all recent, with the most recent being from 2019.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the criticism section is very vague and is hard to follow. At first the authors talks about how transgenerational trauma can be seen in mice, but when they start explaining the experiment/research it is hard to tell if they are referring to human trials or mice. This entire section also does not actually discuss what the criticism is about, other than that the experiment had a small sample size. The criticism seems to be more related to that specific research group/experiment and not the subject of transgenerational trauma as a whole

Content evaluation

The different sections that explain the History, Symptoms and Treatments, and Transmissions are all accurate and relevant information. While there is some information missing under the history, none of the current information is inaccurate. Authors may want to add more information about different groups of people who have historically experienced intergenerational trauma, how different types of trauma can effect individuals- it seems that this article heavily focuses on racism as a trauma. The section on treatment also is quite vague as it does not discuss the specifics of treatment and only mentions psychological therapy without mentioning successful treatment methods (ex. CBT, hypnosis, medication). The section on Transmissions is very thorough and seems to be fully completed, only needing updates as time passes. The last section which describes criticisms is mostly irrelevant as it discusses the criticism of one specific study, that the sample size was too small, and does not really explain how the criticism is related to the topic of intergenerational trauma.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

Is the article neutral? Some sections seem to be neutral while others seemed to be slightly biased because of omission.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? yes, the biased part.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The concept of racism as a trauma that leads to transgenerational trauma, is important, but seems to be overrepresented compared to the lack of other traumas explained. While the authors discuss the holocaust and war survivors briefly,
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not try to persuade the reader in any direction, but does seem to suggest the idea that racial trauma is the main reason for the persistence of intergenerational trauma.

Tone and balance evaluation

Some sections, especially the sections about transmission, are heavily scientific and seem the least biased. These sections are factual based and discuss the biology behind the psychology. However in the sections of history and symptoms and treatment have paragraphs that are more biased towards the idea that racial trauma is the main reason for the persistence of intergenerational trauma.The criticisms section seems heavily biased against the idea of transgenerational trauma. While it explains that some claims about the concept are controversial, the author does not present both perspectives and only presents the 'cons' of the idea of transgenerational trauma.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some sections have more citations than others.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some are from established journals and that have strong credibility while others seem to have a weaker credibility and are more opinionated such as a New York Times article. There is also an unreliable source from tumblr which is a blog website that is heavily biased.
Are the sources current? Some are more recent than others, the oldest one that I could find was from 1975, while the most recent being 2019.
Check a few links. Do they work? The links that are available all seem to work.

Sources and references evaluation

The Transmission sections, which is more science dense, are more heavily cited and are from credible sources such as academic journals. The History and Symptoms/Treatment sections have more biased sources such as news articles which may include or leave out specific information. The criticisms sections has weak sources- tumblr which is a blog website (heavily biased), and a New York times Article which is also generally biased in some way.

Organization

Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Some parts are easy to follow, while other sections are more difficult to understand and are quite redundant.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? : Some paragraphs have no errors, while others have minor errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes

Organization evaluation

The major sections of the article all make sense and provide a clear outline of the subject as a a whole. However, some paragraphs are obviously written by different people as certain parts are easier to follow than others. Some sections are quite redundant and repeat information listed in previous sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
Are images well-captioned? n/a
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Images and media evaluation

N/A- no images

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? there are only 2 comments, both from 2014. One dismissed the articles and uses profane language while doing so and the other provides a suggestion for a citation to be added to the article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? yes: WikiProject Medicine; WikiProject Psychology; WikiProject Sociology; also part of a Wiki Education Foundation- supported course assignment. It is rated as a B ranking article
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?: Wikipedia discussed the idea with a very American and Euro-centric view point mainly discussing the trauma of Black Americans, Holocaust survivors, and briefly touching upon Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples.

Talk page evaluation

I think the talk page is rather limited and there needs to be more discussion by students, affected individuals, doctors and psychologists who study intergenerational trauma. Of the 2 comments that are part of the talk page, one is very opinionated that aims to discredit the article entirely. The other aims to provide a suggestion about a citation from a book that looks at a different perspective of trauma. The book discusses the experiences of children of the Nazi who feel traumatized by the actions of their parents and feel guilty for their parent's wrong doings. Both of these 'suggestions' are not taken into account in the article at all.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status? Marked as a level B
What are the article's strengths? The scientific portions of methods of transmission are very thorough and have very credible ciations
How can the article be improved? The section on History and Symptoms and Treatments can be added to, to include different groups of people and how different types of traumas correlate to different symptoms and how different symptoms may need different treatments.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Specific sections are well developed, some need to have more information, but the current information is not inaccurate. The last section is poorly developed and should be entirely rewritten or omitted.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article is okay- I agree with the B rating. Some sections (Tramission) are strong and have well developed ideas and strong sources to back those facts up, but other sections need a lot of revisions. I think the best thing for this article is to get more traffic and have more collaborators to introduce more information as well as verify the current information. More citations need to include links that are available to the general public and sources must be credible and not biased. While all of the main ideas seem helpful and are generally accurate (based of the research that I have done so far) specific facts may be questionable or biased towards some opinions/ideas.

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: