User:Bkbrar/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title:
 * Type A and Type B personality theory
 * Article Evaluation
 * LEAD SECTION
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? YES
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? YES
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? NO
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.
 * CONTENT
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? YES
 * Is the content up-to-date? I would say yes. I am not an expert so I would need to do more research to be sure.
 * Is there content missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can see.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? I don't think so
 * TONE AND BALANCE
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Mostly, it does present both points of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is a large section on the criticisms of the theory, but it still presents the other side as well. It does seem biased against Type A personalities and paints them in a more negative light than type B.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? Possibly the criticism of the theory.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * Are all facts backed up by a reliable source? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes. They cover a wide range of time but there are a few from the last ten years. It is possible that there are other more recent sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Are there better sources available? I would have to do more research.
 * Do the links work? Yes
 * ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY
 * Is the article well-written? Yes but it is a bit wordy and uses academic language that might make it difficult for the average reader to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical errors? Not that I can find.
 * Is the article well-organized? Yes
 * IMAGES AND MEDIA
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA
 * TALK PAGE
 * What kinds of conversation are going on behind the scenes? A lot of people have issues with this article. The wording seems biased and paints these personality types as disorders.
 * How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? It is part of the WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology. It is rated as start-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses the topic differ from what we've talked about in class? We have not talked about this topic in class.
 * OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
 * What is the article's status? It seems developed because it includes a lot of information. However, I think that the information needs to be paired down and the wording needs to be changed.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article gives a lot of information.
 * How can it be improved? It could be improved by rewording a possibly updating sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness? i would say it is incomplete.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness? i would say it is incomplete.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Mood swing


 * Article Evaluation
 * LEAD SECTION
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The subject could be described better.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It could be more descriptive.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise
 * CONTENT
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? It is hard to tell. It does seem like there is more information that could be included in this.
 * Is there content missing or content that does not belong? I think there is quite a bit of content missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No
 * TONE AND BALANCE
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * Are all facts backed up by a reliable source? No there is an entire section that does not have any citations.
 * Are the sources thorough? I think there could be more sources.
 * Are the sources current? There might be newer sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Are there better sources available? Hard to say without more research.
 * Do the links work? Yes
 * ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY
 * Is the article well-written? There are areas that need more explanation and possibly wording that is easier to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical errors? Not that I can find
 * Is the article well-organized? Yes
 * IMAGES AND MEDIA
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Sort of
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
 * TALK PAGE
 * What kinds of conversation are going on behind the scenes? There is a lot of information missing that could be added to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? It is rated Start-class and is part of Psychology, Sociology, and Medicine
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses the topic differ from what we've talked about in class? We have not talked about this in class.
 * OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
 * What is the article's status? Underdeveloped
 * What are the article's strengths? It lays out the basic information
 * How can it be improved? It could include more information
 * How would you assess the article's completeness? It is incomplete.
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Memorization
 * Article Evaluation
 * LEAD SECTION
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise
 * CONTENT
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? I think there is more information to be added.
 * Is there content missing or content that does not belong? I think there might be more information that could be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No
 * TONE AND BALANCE
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * Are all facts backed up by a reliable source? No there need to be more sources.
 * Are the sources thorough? No there are only a few sources.
 * Are the sources current? I would guess there are more current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Are there better sources available? I think there might be.
 * Do the links work? Yes
 * ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY
 * Is the article well-written? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized? Yes
 * IMAGES AND MEDIA
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? not really, a better image could have been selected
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
 * TALK PAGE
 * What kinds of conversation are going on behind the scenes? This article has not been heavily edited on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? I cannot find a rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses the topic differ from what we've talked about in class? NA
 * OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
 * What is the article's status? Underdeveloped
 * What are the article's strengths? It gives the basic information
 * How can it be improved? It could have more sources to back up its claims
 * How would you assess the article's completeness? incomplete
 * Sources
 * https://video-alexanderstreet-com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/watch/the-5-principles-of-memorizatio
 * https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/docview/2236683685?accountid=8360&pq-origsite=primo
 * https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/science/article/pii/S0167876007001663

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources