User:Laurenharper02/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
LGBTQ psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I love learning about psychology. I also am part of the LGBTQ+ community, so learning more about it was an interest to me. My initial reaction to this article was that this information should be shared and I am so glad people are taking time to edit it.

Evaluate the article
When I first open the article, I noticed that the lead sentence was concise and it encapsulated what I thought this article was going to be about. Now, if I was looking at the first paragraph as a whole, I would make some changes. It does not mention that there is going to be a whole section talking about the community's mental health and it does not mention that it is going to talk about LGBTQ+ experience in school. I feel that an article about LGBTQ+ psychology would have some mention of mental health, so it should mention that in the leading paragraph. Overall, the leading paragraph is concise and does not have any details that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. After reading the article, I do believe that the content is relevant to the topic. This content is up to date. I do not feel that this article is missing content. It is talking about one of WIkipedia's equity gaps. I was thinking that the section titled "gender" sounded a little bit opinionated, but they cited a source, so I feel as though my conclusions might have been wrong. The article is a very well written, heavily cited piece of information. The article's strength was going into detail and spreading awareness on topics with facts to back it up. There are pictures, they did not add much to the article, but it makes it nicer to look at. I feel like this article is slightly underdeveloped because new information in this era would contribute heavily.

Some additional notes from Dr. Vetter
One of the most visible problems with this article is that it isn't written in a Neutral Point of View. This is evident from the banner or "tag" at the very beginning of the article that states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" INterestingly, this banner was added in 2017 and has still not been removed, which means the article has needed some attention to the issue of neutrality for a long time.

In addition to the issue with NPOV, another editor has noted on the talk how the article lacks a historicval perspective. Though this has been added to a degree, there are still updates to be made to the section on History.

Another issue I noticed was that the references are a bit dated. This is a rapidly changing/dynamic field and topic, and the Wikipedia article that should have the most current references available.