User:Anderson268/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Compartmentalization (psychology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The main reason I chose this article is because it was super short! I say that not because I do not have to read a lot, but because I see a great need for improvement on the page. Compartmentalization is an interesting topic that I have never researched before, so I am excited to learn more! I feel like I have heard the word "compartmentalize" a lot, but I do not know much about it. As is, the current state of the article is not very good.

Evaluate the article
Lead


 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article.
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * The information in the lead is not used again in the rest of the article.
 * The lead is concise. It is the best part of the article, in my opinion.

Content


 * The content is mostly relevant. Compartmentalization is mentioned in almost every sentence, but the topics are kind of random. I am not sure how much the literary examples are adding to the page at this point.
 * Content from sources is from 2005, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2020.
 * All content cited is included on the page.
 * The article is very short. It does not get into any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * I believe the article is neutral.
 * I did not catch any biases.
 * There are no views overrepresented or underrepresented; the article could use a lot of additions.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References


 * Everything was cited, but the reference list contains a several book citations with no links.
 * One link leads to an abstract of an article on PsychNet. That appears to be the most thorough source. All other links lead to definitions.
 * The most current source is from 2020. The next earliest source was from 2013.
 * There are not enough sources to accurately comment on this.
 * After a search on PsychInfo, there seems to be reviewed articles that would add more insight to this topic. There are some on PubMed that may add more information as well.
 * The links work, but there are not many.

Organization and Written Quality


 * The lead is easy to read and is one of the largest parts of the article. The rest of the article is kind of random, in my opinion.
 * I do not see any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * The article is broken down into sections but the content in each section is weak.

Images and Media


 * There are no images included on the page.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are a few comments on the talk page, most being at least ten years old. Two people added or questioned some material. The rest were discussing how the article needed improvement. The last comment was from 2019 questioning any gender differences on the topic.
 * The article was rated as Start-Class and Mid-importance. It is part of the WikiProject Psychology.

Overall Impressions


 * The article is not close to being complete.
 * The article is missing a lot. This may have to do with the mount of research available, but I think it could still be a lot more organized than it is. There are several different topics that included just one sentence. I feel like that is a little too random. Finding less, more researched, ideas would be helpful. I am still not sure if the literary examples are significant, so those could possibly be removed. Overall, I hope to add some new, substantial information, even if it is just on one topic.
 * I would say it is both underdeveloped and poorly developed.