User:Mwaryas/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Selective auditory attention - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in the topic of selective attention based on my experience on it in the Cognitive Psychology course I took last semester. This specific subheading of selective attention (selective auditory attention) is particularly important because it explores the issues that arise with inattentional blindness, development, and differences of selective hearing in different demographics. With that being said, my preliminary impression of the article was that certain headings that were introduced did not seem to be fully complete. It even says that the prevalence of selective hearing "has not been clearly researched yet".

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead has a decent introductory sentence, as it is simply a definition of selective auditory attention. The lead needs work on its outline of topics discussed in the article. Organization is needed in acknowledging the subheadings that are to come.

Content: A section missing significant information is the "Development in youth" section. It seemed like a second thought of a section to add without adding much meaningful content. So as to fully contribute to this article, much of my goals in contribution will be to development in youth in relation to selective auditory attention.

Tone and balance: The article is neutral excluding the generalizations made in their comparison of the sexes. I'm also concerned with the usage of the words "...is important because" as this introduces a certain level of interpretation. More objective tone could be used there.

Sources and references: All sources used are significantly older than 2024, some even reaching 50 years or more. While it is important to include established scientific evidence that may dated but true, it begs the question of if this information is recent enough. There should definitely be more recent information on the topic. With that being said, there are various modes of publishing here which is good. The links checked work.

Organization and writing quality: The writing is easy to read, but maybe even too easy. It seems informal at times and could do with more scientific wording. The article is organized in that it is broken down into certain sections, however, there does not seem to be any order to these sections whether it be chronological, by importance, by subheadings, etc. That is important.

Images and media: There are no images. Perhaps some images could contribute to the understanding, however, I think it fine that there are none.

Talk page discussion: The article is rated C, so there is changes to be made. The last time anyone updated anything was November 2023. It was a part of many Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, meaning student editors have been working on it. There have been many student editors, all who have civilly shared the changes they made.

Overall impressions: I would not say the article is poorly developed, but it is definitely underdeveloped. The strengths of the article could be its conciseness at times, but there are many weaknesses that could be improved in organization and more relevant subheadings/topics.