User:Flync1

Article evaluation

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. Nothing distracted me from the main purpose of the article. The information is not out of date since the earliest source is 2003 and the latest source is 2011. I do not see anything missing that could be added or anything else that could be improved. The article has a neutral tone and is completely unbiased. For the most part, each viewpoint is equally represented although, the section about extraversion is much longer than any other section. The links cited work and most lead to reliable journals. On the talk page, a comment about a missing section in the article was made in 2012 but this appears to have been corrected because it is present in the article now.