User:Gloriazhao0905/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Criminal psychology

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.)

The reason why I chose it is that I'm very interested in criminology, and also this article has room for improvement.

This article plays a significant role in not only defining criminal psychology, but also giving us a deeper understanding of criminal psychology by introducing different roles of criminal psychologist and some relative studies.

My first impression on this article was concise and easy to understand.

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.)

The lead has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic sentence "This article will look at the different roles of a criminal psychologist, key aspects of criminals, and major studies that contributed to criminal psychology."

The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections which are the different roles of a criminal psychologist, key aspects of criminals, and major studies that contributed to criminal psychology.

The lead includes all the information that presents in the article.

The article's content is relevant to the topic.

The content is up-to-date and complete.

The article not only doesn't deal with the Wikipedia's equity gaps, but also doesn't address topics related historically underrepresented population.

This article is neutral and has no claim that may be heavily biased toward a particular position.

There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

This article doesn't persuade people to be in favor of one position.

All facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

The source is thorough and current.

The source was written by a diverse spectrum of authors. It includes historically marginalized individuals.

There are better sources available such as "Journal of crime and justice.; Journal of crime and justice"

All links work.

The article is concise, easy and clear to read.

There is no picture on the article. It will be better if there are some pictures here because pictures can attract our attention more easily and give us more intuitive understanding.

This article has no conversation on the talk page.

The article is a Wikiproject.

I don't think there's any difference.

The article's overall status is C-class.

The strength of the article is that it is concise and easy to understand.

The article will be better if there're some pictures and some advice on the talk page.

From my perspectives, this article is underdeveloped because the aspects that it includes are still insufficient. This concept should be discussed and studied more in detailed.