User:KillerKlownzilla/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I have an interest in the psychological assessment tools that are relevant in legal settings. The detection of malingering, or feigned symptomatology, is an important consideration in evaluating the competence of a defendant to stand trial. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is quite brief. Though it does include useful information, there is much detail that could be added that would improve the quality of the page.

Lead section
The lead sentence of the article is strong and immediately provides readers with a basic understanding of what the scale is as well as its purpose. The lead briefly touches on the history of the scale but does not include any other description of the major sections of the article. The lead mentions that there is some controversy over the scale as it could misclassify people with legitimate symptoms as malingering, but this point is not elaborated on anywhere else. It would be useful to present additional sources clarifying how prevalent this controversy is and whether it is a legitimate concern. Overall, the lead is very concise, but there is much room for additional development.

Content
The content of the article is all relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date. Though the sources are not particularly old (latest is from 2015), there may be more recent information regarding the use of this scale. The article should include some more detailed information about the scale, such as how many items are included and the scoring. The "History" section does not describe much about the history of the scale, but rather includes information on validity and frequency of use. This information might be better suited to a "Development and Use" section, which could also include more about how the scale was developed and importantly, the samples with which it was validated. The article does not deal with an equity gap, but it could if these populations were addressed.

Tone and Balance
The article appears to be written from a neutral perspective and avoids claims that are outwardly biased. As noted previously, the article mentions that the scale is controversial to some due to concerns that individuals with true symptomology might be labeled as malingering. However, this concern is not discussed any further, and the linked citation is locked behind a paywall. It appears that this is the minority viewpoint, given that this is a "generally accepted validity test" (although this claim may too warrant further discussion and support than currently present in the article). There is a potential that the reports of validity could be biased as both the original and updated estimates were conducted by the same authors. However, this likely is not problematic in this situation because they are large meta-analyses that encapsulate a number of other studies. Overall, the article seems to be written fairly and does not try to persuade the reader to adopt a particular viewpoint.

Sources and References
Nearly every sentence in the article is supported by a citation (though it is a very short article). These citations do provide some support for the facts presented in the article, but elaborating on these details and referencing more diverse citations would greatly improve the strength of this article. I am not very familiar with the available literature related to this scale, but from a quick search, there may be quite a few valid sources that should be included, such as a panel from the American Psychological Association criticizing the research supporting the scale, as well as works by James Butcher, another critic. The only direct link in the references section (Wall Street Journal) is locked behind a paywall.

Organization and writing quality
Overall, the article is well-written and concise. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is organized in a way that makes sense for the information that is currently included. However, when additional information is added, it would likely be beneficial to reorganize slightly.

Images and Media
The article does not contain any images or media. Images are not necessarily required to enhance understanding of this topic, but adding some may increase readability and interest.

Talk page discussion
There is currently no discussion on the article's talk page. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology and interestingly, within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends a particular manual of style and medical sources.

Overall impressions
The article is rated as "start class." Its strengths include its clarity and inclusion of validity reports. Its brevity presents as both a strength and as an area for improvement. The article is quite underdeveloped right now. There is much room for detail and elaboration that could substantially strengthen it.