User:Emiell490/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Positive psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I find topics related to potentially life changing mindsets to be very interesting. I think it is very important and even necessary for education on mental health, psychology, and the mindset in order for people to be able to live their highest quality of life. If I see something that can educate me further or help others educate themselves on that subject, I am immediately interested. I think it is important to evaluate articles such as these for any improvements needed so individuals have access to the most accurate, represented, and up to date information as possible.

Evaluate the article
The Lead Section of the Positive Psychology article contains a leading sentence that defines clearly what the article is about. It does contain brief descriptions of the main sections, however it feels repetitive once you are reading those sections. It does not include any misplaced information, it is concise and just enough to fully describe the topic and keep you wanting to read further if you are interested.

The content of the article is all relevant and up to date with several sources and studies. There is no out of place content, it all ties together well. However, there is no direct mention on equity gaps or underrepresented populations directly. These factors seem to be unaccounted for in the article or topic; however, the Philosophical Critique section does point out that there is a lack of representation of people's differences within this topic.

The article is neutral and simply relays information from all sides of the topic. There are no obviously biased claims, however, as mentioned previously, there seems to be no information on underrepresented populations relating to the topic. This could be a flaw on Wikipedia's end, or it could be underrepresentation within the studies that have been done. There is no purposeful persuasion that leads to any certain opinion on the topic Positive Psychology.

Facts are backed up by several secondary sources listed. They have numerous studies and literature listed within the topic of Positive Psychology. Some are current, and some are historical research or research leading up to the most current. Although there is quite a diverse selection of authors, there is hardly any research on historically marginalized individuals and there is really no consideration for culture or socioeconomic status. There are only two out of over one-hundred sources that represent for culture or socioeconomics, and none on historically marginalized individuals. For the topic itself, all of the best possible articles are listed. Better sources available would be those that include studies on historically marginalized individuals, whether that means studies need to be done or they just need to be added into the article. The links to the sources work correctly. The article is very well-written and broken down into sections easy to understand and read. There are no grammatical errors.

The article includes few images that do not really enhance the topic. Two of them are well-captioned, two of them are not. They feel like pictures that were thrown in just so the article could have some imagery. They appear to follow the copyright regulations and are laid out in an organized way, however more pictures related to the topic of Positive Psychology could have been added in place of some or along with them. There is potential for better fitting images that could be more related to the topic.

There is only one conversation on the talk page and it has since been removed. It was a conversation on whether or not the article is eligible for the "Did You Know" nomination.The Wikipedia discussion differs from a conversation about the topic within class because the discussion is looked at more of as an assigned "yes or no" question. The article is rated C-class and a part of WikiProject Psychology.

Overall, the article is great for those who are just starting out with information for the topic. It is a great introduction and a great start for further inquiring information on the topic. However, improvement could be used in representation for socioeconomic status and marginalized individuals, along with other differences such as gender, race and more. The article is well-developed with the exception of the underrepresentation.