User:Micheladitmore/Evaluate an Article

I picked the article Pathological lying for my evaluation.

The reasoning behind picking this article is because I enjoy psychology and want to learn the most from that field. Also, considering I enjoy it so much, I feel like I'm more motivated to ensure the information is correct and provide useful edits. Unfortunately, this article is quite short, has some structuring issues, and the source page is mediocre at best.

The introduction given in the first section of the article is the best part of the whole thing. Those few sentences are concise, well written, and informative. The exact opposite of the rest of the article. The only thing that could be added is a small part that overviews the sections below.

In a general sense, the article lacks reliability. The reason behind that is likely because pathological lying is so controversial. However, not even the controversy is black and white. Some researchers say it only tags onto other problems, some say that it can exist on its own, and some say it does not even exist. Pathological lying does not exist as a stand alone disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. The fifth edition is the most recent, therefore it holds the most current views of the American Psychological Association. The article does mention that pathological lying is in the DSM III as a stand alone disorder, but it fails to point out that it is not the most recent edition. In fact, it does not mention the fifth edition at all and it should. If that was not a problem enough, one of he article own sources ( https://psychologia.co/compulsive-and-pathological-liars/ ) questions the Wikipedia article for including that information as they do not think that information is correct. I am going to say that it is a big problem when one of the sources is questioning the reliability in one of the other sources.

A whole slew of problems accumulate in the reference section. The same source is referenced twice in the references, instead of just reusing the first reference. Most of the notable information comes from a Charles Dike. There is further reading provided, but none of the information is included in the article. With how short the article is, it would be wise to include that extra information and be able to add more reliable sources to the references.

The sentence "It has been shown through lie detector tests that PF (pseudologia fantastica) patients exhibit arousal, stress, and guilt from their deception," especially needs a citation that links to information about where this information comes from. A citation is at the bottom of the the paragraph included, but I think it would be valuable to include a link since it cites a test and the results of that test. The sentence "The only diagnosis in our current system where purposeless, internally motivated deception is listed is axis I factitious disorder," also needs a citation. The linked article does not mention lying at all. So where does this information come from?

Another problem is the confusion between compulsive lying and pathological lying. From another Wikipedia page pathological lying is link as compulsive lying. Even though some researchers classify these as two separate occurrences from the references. In fact, a page for compulsive lying does not exist at all. The entire topic seems to be a gray area without enough information or distinguished difference in the community. Many .com sites call these two things different, but do not provide a single reliable source that backs those statements up.

A personal opinion about the organization of the article is that it is unappealing. There is one section just called "Pathological liars" and it is at the bottom of the article. It should probably be titled as "Effects" after reviewing the contents. The contents in it could be restructured as well, as the sentences could clarify much better than they do. Also, "white lies" can be linked to another article in Wikipedia. The first paragraph of the section "Diagnosis" needs a rewrite even if the basis information does not change. That paragraph uses "it" too much and goes crazy with commas.

No images appear on the page, although that does not cause surprise. The page does not necessarily need any media.

The talk page is a mess. Clearly there are some people who care and provide notable edits. However, there are more than a few people who add unneeded or inaccurate edits. There are a lot of suggestions, but no one does anything with the suggestions.

Overall, the article is underdeveloped. The sources are outdated and one sided even though the topic is controversial. The writing is sub par in some paragraphs. Some sections lack proper organization. Worst of all, citations are missing left and right. The status of this article is that is needs to be given a new breath of life.

After a bit of looking through the library database, I was able to pull up slightly newer and more informative sources than the ones listed in references.

Poletti, Michele, Paolo Borelli, and Ubaldo Bonuccelli. "The Neuropsychological Correlates of Pathological Lying: Evidence from Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia." Journal of neurology 258.11 (2011): 2009-13. ProQuest. Web. 7 Sep. 2019.

This source provides a case study that concludes pathological lying could be associated with prefrontal impairment in the brain.

Dike, C., M. Baranoski, and E. E. H. Griffith. "What Is Pathological Lying?" British Journal of Psychiatry 189.1 (2006): 86. Print.

While some works of Charles Dike are already used, this one is slightly newer, and further defines how pathological lying is defined compared to how one study used the word pathological lying.

Jočić, Dragana Đurić, et al. “Pathological Lying and Tasks of Psychological Assessment.” Vojnosanitetski Pregled: Military Medical & Pharmaceutical Journal of Serbia, vol. 75, no. 2, Feb. 2018, pp. 219–223. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2298/VSP151213243D.

This journal explains that most research on pathological lying is outdated and backs up my previous hypothesis that it is likely because pathological lying is not recognized as its own stand alone disorder. Would be very nice to include so that readers can understand that most of the information is incomplete and outdated.

Link to my addition on the talk page: Talk:Pathological lying Micheladitmore (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)