User:Abaudie/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cognitive behavioral training

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.)

I chose this article to read a little more about cognitive behavioral training, due to its correlation to clinical psychology, which has been one of my favorite areas to study. Cognitive behavioral therapy is used to improve functions of skills and is commonly used with children. My preliminary impression of the article was impressed. It came across as well-structured, easy to comprehend, and informative.

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.)

The lead section for this article discussed the topic, explained the relevance and importance, and briefly addressed the pros/cons of cognitive behavioral training. This is a decent representation of what a lead section should look like given that it was intriguing enough for me to want to continue reading but not too overwhelming.

The content of the article was relevant and up to date. It addressed methods, applications, criticisms, history, and efficacy. It also addressed specific situations that treatment could be applicable too, which I found to be an impressive section because of the amount of detail that was covered. I did not see any equity gaps, given that the article addressed both pros and cons as well as criticisms.

The tone of the article was neutral and lacked any form of bias. The ultimate bias would be in participant's that training is applicable to people currently in the preparation and action stages, so the majority of the article that discussed applicable scenarios was directed towards that audience.

While the majority of the sources are recent (2015-2021), I believe the currency of the sources could be an area of improvement, however; most of the sources used were research articles, which are primary sources. Therefore, I would overall consider the sources used to be  creditable, and the number of sources compared to the length of the article is equally proportioned. The links all worked.

The article was well organized and easy to navigate. Each section stayed on topic. There was no notable grammar or sleeping errors, and the article smoothly flowed together.

The article did not contain any images, which is a notable area of improvement. Different forms of media would have made the article more engaging and could have been easily incorporated when discussing applications (ex: addiction, PTSD, etc.)

Overall, the article was a decent read. I would recommend it colleagues who are interested in further exploring training being done in clinical and child psychology. The article could be more engaging, by adding different forms of media and providing visuals of the different applications discussed. I would say describe the article’s completeness as being well developed.