User:LaurenPescador/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

Complex post-traumatic stress disorder

-There is a line in the article that says "some researchers say..." while this line does have a citation, and while this is something I do in my own papers, reading it out loud in another article does make me realize that this line shouldn't be used in general. It does portray a biased lens on the statement you're making.

-There is a line that states Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is similar to other disorders, and it goes on to list these specific disorders. As someone with a psychology degree I can understand why complex post traumatic stress disorder is similar to the disorders listed, however, a person who knows nothing of psychology or these disorders may not understand the comparison. While each specific disorder provides links where the person can learn more, an average person may not have time to look at each one of these disorders. It would have been better if the person writing the article had provided brief descriptions of each disorder and described what made them similar to complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

-There is a line in the article that states children can grow up under different circumstances, but there is no citation. This goes against what Wikipedia believes constitutes a good article, this sentence feels like new material rather than an idea generated from different sources.

-In a section of the article that discusses symptomology of trauma in children there is too much technical language, I understand it, however, a lay person who does not study psychology and has never read an article on trauma may not understand what it is saying and give up reading it all together.

-There is a section of the article that directly copy and pastes key words and their definitions such as attachment, etc. There are citations for where these terms were pulled from, however, according to Wikipedia standards even if there is a citation, you should never copy and paste.

-There is a section that discusses trauma symptomology in adults, there are several sentences without citations, the citation appears at the end of the mini paragraph. So, the citation appear after 3-4 sentences. This is close to plagiarizing.

-There are several technical terms that are not explained such as differential diagnosis: I would understand it, a lay person may not.

-There were sections of the article that distracted me. Like, comparing C-PTSD to other disorders, there was no justification as to why this was done.

-Some of the sources in which the information regarding trauma and symptoms were pulled were from the 90's. Recent literature regarding trauma should have been used.

-The talk page is full of hostile language and criticisms. It also was really close to name calling.

-Overall:

There was a lot of technical language, at times it felt I was reading from the DSM-5. Several paragraphs had citations at the end, rather than including citations after every sentence.