User:Klocascio/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Psychopathology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this topic because it relates to the clinical psychology aspect of our research methods course. From initial impressions, it not a short article, however, there are definitely things that should be edited and there are ares wehre it says citaiton needed. On the "find articles" page, it said that it was a class C article that was only 42% complete.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead section isn't terrible but it is a little short and does not have reliable sources. This section could be expanded and made more thorough. The first sentence also focuses on social norms, which are important, but I think that a more scientific take would be beneficial.

Content: The content that is in this article isn't too bad, but there could be a lot added to make this article more complete. The things that various contributors chose to include is interesting to me and I wonder when I start what I am going to find that is important to include.

Tone and balance: It does not appear to try and persuade those that read it of a particular position, however, on further look, theres some discussion a of religion in a way that might be nonobjective. Overall, I think this article would benefit from a more serious and professional re-write.

Sources and references: There are only 15 references in this article, and very many areas where it says citation needed. I am surprised that these areas where citations are needed weren't taken out of the article as it appears that no one is working on or particularly cares about this article.

Organization and writing quality: It is a bit weirdly structured, and the writing is not always the most well-written. Some of it is a bit hard to understand, it reads like someone just decided to randomly add things that they thought might be important.

Images and media: There are no images and no media. I am not sure what media would be helpful but it is a very boring article right now so I feel like I can look to add relevant images that might add to the overall attraction of the article.

Talk page discussion: This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. The talk page is interesting. There were some people that were very concerned about the article in 2013ish, then has had people arrive at it and see that it needed to be updated in 2018, 2020, and 2021 but it appears that this did not prompt discussion nor did any big change come. The most recent comment was November 2021.

Overall impression: Overall, this article appears neglected. It seems that very few people have worked on it, and while there is a little something there, it could use significant help in making adding more information and bringing it up to date.