User:Mjcorlew/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Phobia
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article is rated as a Start-class on WikiProject Psychology's quality scale. This means that the article needs to be reviewed and edited because it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. The talk page is extremely short, giving the impression that very little editing of the article has taken place.
 * The article lacks in appropriate sources, pictures, and certain subtopics have more information than others. For example, the "Diagnosis" subtopic is only a paragraph long, with one source. Considering how important diagnosis is for treatment, this subtopic is too short and can not be considered accurate because no sources are referenced with the information.
 * Sources
 * There are only 53 sources referenced with this article, but the majority of them are over 10 years old.
 * Sources
 * There are only 53 sources referenced with this article, but the majority of them are over 10 years old.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Psychological Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is rated as a Stub-class on WikiProject Psychology's quality scale. This means that the article needs to be reviewed and edited because it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. In addition, it clearly states that the article "needs attention from an expert in psychology". The talk page lists issues with the article including: lack of example of psychological evaluation tests, issues with the diagnosis claims, missing sections, and a need for restructuring.
 * The introduction paragraph is very short and does not list all the information given in the rest of the article. In addition, the article lacks in appropriate sources, has no pictures, and does not have a section describing the process of a psychological evaluation between a therapist and client. In addition, the article spends two paragraphs discussing pop psychology in assessment; this topic does not seem very relevant to the article.
 * Sources
 * There are only 37 sources referenced with this article. Some sources do not have links attached to them. In addition, many of the articles seem unreliable.
 * Sources
 * There are only 37 sources referenced with this article. Some sources do not have links attached to them. In addition, many of the articles seem unreliable.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Anxiolytic
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is rated as a Start-class on WikiProject Psychology's quality scale. This means that the article needs to be reviewed and edited because it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. In addition, it clearly states that the article "relies too heavily on primary sources". The talk page mostly discusses what kinds of medications are relevant for the article. In addition, the talk page has a comment asking why some information continues to ge deleted. This gives me the impression that Wiki users are not editing this page well.
 * Many of the subtopics (especially the medications) lack important information, specifically in how it helps with anxiety (mechanism) and its side effects. In addition, there seems to be a lack of use in appropriate sources, as well as a lack in important information from sources (in other words, the source is listed for the medication, but very little information is given for the medication).
 * Considering how frequent medication is used to help anxiety, I would not be surprised if this page is looked at by individuals who are thinking of going on medication. Therefore, this article should be up to date with relevant information.
 * Sources
 * Many sources are over 10 years old. In addition, there are too many primary sources.
 * Sources
 * Many sources are over 10 years old. In addition, there are too many primary sources.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Agoraphobia
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is rated as a Start-class on WikiProject Psychology's quality scale. This means that the article needs to be reviewed and edited because it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. The talk page is full of questions about information and reliable sources, giving me the impression that Wiki users have had trouble editing this page.
 * The article is relatively short and missing information. There is only one picture, and it is not relevant to the article. The majority of sources are over 10 years old. It is safe to say that this article is not sub par to Wikipedia's standards.
 * Sources
 * There are 60 sources, but most are over 10 years old and some are missing links.
 * Sources
 * There are 60 sources, but most are over 10 years old and some are missing links.

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Death Anxiety
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is rated as a C-class on WikiProject Psychology's quality scale. This means that the article still needs to be reviewed and edited because it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. The article clearly states that it is written as a personal reflection and/or an argumentative essay. In addition, the article has an unclear citation style. The talk page mostly includes comments about religious aspects of death anxiety.
 * The subsections of the article seem rather short, especially of those discussing the theories associated with death anxiety. There is no information about how to decrease death anxiety, which seems like an important subtopic. There are no pictures in this article. In addition, there is biased language, which should never occur in a Wikipedia article.
 * Sources
 * There are 36 sources, most of which are over 10 years old. In addition, the citation style is somewhat confusing.
 * Sources
 * There are 36 sources, most of which are over 10 years old. In addition, the citation style is somewhat confusing.