User:Daisy 2349/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Misattribution of arousal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article because the idea of arousal misattribution seemed interesting. My preliminary impression was that it is based on scientific experience studying multiple different types of arousal.

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 clearly identified the topic of the page as well as defined some of the most important background information needed to understand the subsequent studies. It concisely describes the article's first section and briefly mentions an additional study discussed on the page but does not mention the extent of the studies discussed in the "subsequent research" section.

The article's content is relevant but not up to date with the current research seeing as most cited sources are over 20 years old. It looks at the psychology of arousal which is an under-discussed topic due to its relation to sex and sexuality.

The information in the article does not attempt to bias the reader one way or another. It takes a neutral standpoint on the information by presenting things only as research study results. It describes the ways the studies interact with results from previously constructed that may contradict the findings of prior studies. In doing this, it offers the contradicting study results as additional frameworks rather than attempting to claim that the validity of one study is greater than the other, thus remaining neutral.

The facts of the article are cited and all are from reputable sources in the field of psychology. It seems that most sources are not very current, many of which are from the 20th century and the most recent being from 2005. The links to the sources work. Additional research done on this topic seems to build mainly on the studies mentioned here so although the sources are old, they are still useful to include.

The article is well written and concise without spelling or grammatical errors. The section headers give clear indications about what information can be found throughout the article.

There is only one photograph present but it is visually relevant to a study discussed in the page. The caption could be better by stating that "the study found that the same women appears more attractive when met at the end of an unstable suspension bridge" in order to more accurately report the study's results. I think it adheres to the copyright regulations.

The talk page states changes that a class wishes to make and based on the information present in the article, they have already made those changes to improve the issues they originally found with it. It is a part of the Wikiprojects of Psychology and Sexology and sexuality.

The article seems well developed but could include more relevant information about the implications of each study's findings on arousal. The article sets up a very strong background and concisely explains the findings of the studies. The article is close to complete but could be improved.