User:A3341816/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical Associate (Psychology) - Wikipedia

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I picked this article because it was something I was generally interested in. I've always enjoyed the clinical side of psychology more than the research. I value the "how does that make you feel" question. Clinical Psychology matters to me because it's an ever-evolving field, so my income won't be necessarily an issue. Besides that, however, it's something I love seeing with my own two eyes (especially with behavior in mind). The question of why a certain behavior makes someone do things has always peaked my interest. Going into this I had a slight idea of what a Clinical Psychologist was, a person of science who asked the daunting question in a clinical setting but also researched the reason to it.

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

- The lead section discusses everything that will be presenting in the Wiki page. It is not too overbearing with information, just enough to get someone a little more interested in the topic that they are looking up. ￼

Content

-The article content is related to the topic; they give tremendous examples of origins of Clinical Psychology, where it comes from and many different ways it is used. The content is relatively up to date the most recent posting in the article was from 2020. They displayed the wages associated with different jobs related to Clinical Psychology. Only content I found that was missing was more representation about the field and the advances that people of color made in the field. For instance, they could discuss things about Herman Canady who is relatively known African American Clinical Psychologist. Besides that, I did not see many things to add overall a fantastic article.

Tone and Balance

- The tone and balance in this article are neutral. There are no biases presented and the writer gives insight to other fields related to Clinical Psychology within their article. The claims that were made are factual and the articles are presented and easily accessible. I believe the articles are not bias as well and give a good overview of the ups and downs associated within the field.

Sources

- The sources in the article are well diverse around the article. With many of the 96 the links worked out of the 20 or so I checked. The sources provide mass amounts of content and are easily readable, some of them range back to the 80's while some are modern day. With discussing the history of a topic, it makes sense that some of the topics are old. I think there would be some better options for sources out there just in the diverse community. After searching for about 30 minuets, I can see however that it's difficult to find a credible source by different populations of people. This is something I look forward to helping this article with.

Organization, Images

- The article is well written with no noticeable errors in their grammar or punctuation. Some of the article's topics are broad and short. While others are deeply diving into with many articles with credible sources. This is where I discovered some of the biases in the article after rereading it a couple of times. The images match with what is being presented to the left of it. However, some of these images are copyright images so they should not be usable under Wiki guidelines. The captions detail what is in the picture and gives a brief understanding of why the picture is being placed there.

Talk page, overall thoughts

The talk page has many people in it. I can see from reading this that my some of my initial thoughts were wrong many of the people in the talk page thought that this author put bias content within in the article. Another person said the writer left many key people in the development of Clinical Psychology out of the article. Which can put more into a bias this person may have. While the article is a B it did not start that way with tremendous amounts of people finding better resources for the article as well as adding more and more information into the article as well. We have not gone into this topic much in class, there was no difference in what was said about the amount of education required. The articles overall status at his point is good, with many of the edits being made and more and more sources being published into the article to make biases appear less. A weakness the article has at the moment is still a lack of representation which is being editing in soon from the "Talk" section. I would access the article as being moderately developed with many strides to go. I personally enjoyed the article and would not mind continuing to read it in the future.