User:Darceyg315/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Self-enhancement
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

The reason I have chosen this article to evaluate is because I am very passionate about psychology in general and in my past psychology classes we never really focused on self enhancement. I feel like working on this article would be an overall learning experience with what the content is about and practicing evaluating a Wiki article.

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include a brief description as to what self-enhancement is. The Lead does not however, do a good job of including a description of the articles major topic sections. Instead, the introductory description goes on to talk only about three topics included at the very end of the article. The Lead does not include things that are not included in the article. The Lead is overly detailed and is a bit all over the place, there is too much different information about different topics that do not contribute anything to the Lead.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic of self-enhancement. The content of the topic is however, not up-to-date, the latest article cited was in the year 2005. There is no content that is missing or does not belong. The article does include a study that includes Chinese culture but the overall studies included only include Western culture.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, everything is solely informative on the topic of Self-enhancement. A viewpoint that could be better represented is the topic of selectivity. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position.

Sources and References

 * Sources and references evaluation

All the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. All the sources do a good job of being thorough and reflecting the available literature on the topic. The sources are not as current as they should be, the most recent source was published in 2005. The sources are all scientific journals and peer reviewed sources. The links I checked still worked but required administrative access.

Organization


The article is well-written and is clear, concise and easy to read. The article does have a few mechanical errors. The article is broken down very well into clear sections that reflect major points.

Images and media evaluation
The article includes a few images and graphs that help the reader further understand the topic. The images are appropriately captioned. All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images could be a bit bigger in order to be more appealing to the reader.

Talk page evaluation
The types of conversations going on behind the scenes of this page are debates on psychological theories involved, as well as corrections on outdated topics. This article has been rated as a C-Class Wiki project article. We have pretty much discussed it the same way as Wikipedia discussed it.

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is of mid-importance. The articles strengths are the credible scientific journal sources. The article can be improved by updating sources and studies that are used as examples. For the time it was written it was well-developed but now in the year 2020, the article is poorly developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: