User:Glassgardens/Evaluate an Article

Lead Section
In the Wikipedia page Othello error, the first sentence is is concise and conveys the article's topic well to an uninformed reader. However, the lead section is only one paragraph—it does provide a brief overview of important points, but it fails to mention some of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information not found in the article, but overall, it is concise.

Content
The article's content is mostly relevant. I would need to do further research into the topic at hand in order to verify its present accuracy, but there is no indication that any information is out-of-date. However, the section at the end, titled "Potential solutions" feels like extrapolation or analysis more than a collection of secondary sources, especially since there are some statements of fact that go uncited. This article does touch on underrepresented populations with its discussion of the Othello error and its impacts following 9/11, but as a whole, the article feels like it could go further in-depth into each section. There isn't necessarily content missing, but its explanations of concepts could be stronger.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral until the final section. It does not touch on minority or fringe viewpoints, but the author does seem biased towards a specific viewpoint. There are definitely opinionated claims present in this article that could be an attempt at pursuading the reader toward a specific viewpoint.

Sources and References
The links provided work. They appear to be from a variety of sources and authors with different backgrounds, but some of the sources seem to be from possibly unreliable websites. There could be better sources for this, but this article's author has included sources from peer-reviewed journals and books. Not every claim is cited in the article, though. The entire last section only has one statement cited, but it makes numerous claims.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is organized in a clear way. However, the writing style is at times difficult to understand and the author makes a handful of grammatical errors. Overall, it needs some stylistic polishing in order to read like a more reliable Wikipedia page.

Images and Media
There are no images or media incorporated into this article.

Talk Page Discussion
There are no talk page discussions currently. This article is related to the WikiProject Psychology, and it is rated C-class and of low importance.

Overall Impressions
This article does a good job giving a basic overview and history of its topic. It feels like it includes many diverse facets of discussion surrounding the Othello error. However, it needs some general clean-up with its grammar and style, as well as a reworking or removal of the last section of analysis. This article feels incomplete and underdeveloped, but it's at a good starting point.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

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.)