User:LCiiCL/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Big Five personality traits
 * Personality disorders greatly interest me and I would like to be a therapist for people with personality disorders in the future.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead introductory sentence, in my opinion, does not seem very clear. I feel if someone who had no knowledge of this model read the sentence, they would have trouble understanding it. Other than that, I think the lead covers the article's major sections concisely in that it briefly mentions each trait, the history, and the studies done in different people and groups. There is nothing in the lead that is not present in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic, however, some of the studies seem to not be up-to-date. For example, in the twin studies section, the article cited the work of "four recent twin studies", and when I checked the date of the following citation, the scientific study was published in January 2003. While this is not necessarily old, it cannot be called recent, this could be misleading as there could have been more twin studies since January 2003 on the Big Five.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
When describing each trait, I found it interesting when the different sides of the traits were described. For example, people with high extraversion were described as BEING "enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals", and people with low extraversion were described as SEEMING "quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world". This implies certainty on one end of the spectrum, but uncertainty on the other side. It could also mean that people with high extraversion are better than people with low extraversion (in this case, this would imply bias towards being high in extraversion). Other than that, I think the article is neutral overall. I expected twin studies to be highlighted more as it was mentioned in the introduction/lead, but it was a very short section with only two cited studies, so this section seemed to be slightly under-represented in my opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Six facts had a hyperlink that says "Citation Needed", which is concerning, so not all the facts are backed up with information, possibly implying that the studies used were not good ones or they were deleted. Approximately half of the sources are from the 2010s, showing that they are relatively recent and are a good representation of what we currently know. Out of the five links that I clicked on, they all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was easy to navigate using all of the sections and made me feel informed on all the available approaches to the Big Five personality traits.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Only two of the images aided in my understanding of the article, including the graph regarding the Big Five personality trait population means versus a heroin user's and the first image. The other photos seemed to be inserted into the article just for the sake of having pictures. The captions of the photos explain their relevance in relation to the section discussing the history of the Big Five personality traits. All the photos adhere to the copyright regulations in that it is either people posting their own personal photos or stock photos. The images are visually appealing, but like mentioned before, do not add much information or aid in my understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article has been rated as a C. I found a comment that also reflected my view on the Extraversion section in that it painted people who were low in extraversion in a bad light, it is good to see that I am not alone in how I feel about the article. It is within the WikiProject Psychology scope. It is very interesting to see a talk page on Wikipedia because it is a small area of people helping others understand the article, everyone pitches in to make it easier to understand.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I enjoyed reading the article, but there were definitely sections that I had to re-read and definitions that I had to look up. I felt like there were a lot of sections that surrounded the history, different approaches, and descriptions of the Big Five, which made me feel well-versed, but some sections like the one about twin studies should be updated. There is a lot of potential for good information, but some sections have too much jargon or are outdated (no studies in the last 10 years). I believe the article is underdeveloped.