User:Divdiv25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Attachment theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article since I am interested in attachment theories and particularly the three attachment styles. Attachment theory is an extremely powerful theory that has been cited by many different psychological studies. My preliminary impression of it is that the article seemed neutral and covered several different aspects of attachment theory.

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.)

Attachment theory is important because it explains how early interactions with caregivers and interactions in future relationships can have profound impacts on future behavior and relationships.

For the most part, the content of the article is up to date and relevant to the main topic; however, there is a section about defining attachment that is not concise. The article's content is relevant to the topic.

The lead includes an introductory sentence that defines attachment theory very vaguely, it doesn't explain what the theory is and rather just explains what the theory is concerned about. The lead does a good job briefly describing main sections of article and is fairly concise. The lead doesn't include information that isn't present in article.

The article discusses the three main types of attachment styles (secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant) and viewpoints are neutral and doesn't attempt to persuade a reader one way or another.

The majority of the facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources that are current. Most of the citations are from well known psychological journals and books. There are frequent citations, except in the section about attachment style in adults there are fewer citations and sections about cultural differences in attachment styles. There are some sections where citations are needed. The links in the sources seem to be working and up to date.

The article is well written with few grammatical areas. There are certain sections (such as the first section about attachment in general) that can be more concise. The different sections of the article is good, although it would be more practical to create a "culture" section of the article.

There could be more images used in this article, there are only a few and some of the ones used don't seem relevant. They are cited correctly and captions are good.

The talk page discusses how some work could be used for citations, but there isn't much feedback. It has a B-class rating and was a former featured article. It was part of several Wikiprojects (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). The content brings up attachment styles we haven't discussed in class such as disorganized attachment.

Overall I think this a good article that gives a great general understanding of attachment styles and attachment theory. I think the strengths of the article include the descriptions of the different attachment styles. The article can be improved by writing more in the criticism section and by elaborating on categorization differences across cultures. It could also be improved by adding more citations in certain areas. It is well developed but could use improvement in the sections about culture.