User:Pocketsized24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Criminal psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I have always been interested in forensics and true crime. One thing that has always fascinated me is the psychology behind why someone commits a crime. Criminal psychology is important when someone is being tried for a crime. This helps the judge and the jurors better understand the mental state, and the why at the time of the crime. Criminal psychology is crucial in the judiciary system. My initial impression of the subject and the article was okay. The article is short but to me it seems like it has a good start. It will take some updating, but it has a good start. I am also interested in the subject so I am very excited.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, this article has a topic sentence that is easy to read and gives a great description of the subject matter. If someone was looking for a quick definition of this subject they would find it quickly.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does give a brief description of why criminal psychologists are important, but it does not give a brief description of all the sections such as history, profiling, consultations, etc.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The third source is not referenced again in the rest of the article, but the information is the same concept. The article did not go into detail about criminal anthropology and the lead includes a little information on this subject matter. At the bottom of the page, though, it is mentioned in the "see also" section.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead section is concise, but a little too concise. There could be more information added in order to better summarize the rest of the information provided.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there is relevant information included that is related to the subject itself.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some of the sources are relatively current (late 2010's), but there are some references that are from the early 2000's. The older references will need to be updated. More information needs to be added to the history and consultation portion. The key studies could also be investigated further to have more recent cases included possibly.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think there is any content that does not belong. I think that since criminal anthropology is mentioned in the lead than it should be briefly mentioned elsewhere.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I do not believe so. From the research that I have done on equity gaps criminals are not mentioned. There are minorities that are in the justice system.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is written in a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It has a decent sized section on profiling. More information could be added about other career fields.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Profiling is the main career that is covered. There are other careers that could be covered. History and consultation sections could be improved.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There is not any.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They seem to be. All most all are scholarly journals or books.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of them are from the 1990's and early 2000's. Some are from the late 2010's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The only author that I can tell the race of is Caucasian.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Other than the articles being outdated they are from reliable sources. Some of the articles have been updated since they were sourced.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work, but they are behind a paywall.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is clear and easy to read. The author did an excellent job writing and explaining.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * no images

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations that have been held about the article are much older. The issues that were talked about address the issues that I have mentioned above.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the WikiEDU foundation, WikiProject Crime, WikiProject Psychology, and WikiProject Italy. C-Class in all projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed this topic in class. This topic is related to psychology.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall I liked the article. There are things that need updated and a few topics that need expanded on. The article was easy to read and easy to understand.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The leading sentence is a good strong sentence. It gives good information about different types of jobs that are available.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Some of the sections need expanded on a bit more. Some of the information is outdated, and needs to be updated.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is underdeveloped due to some of the sections as stated above needing expanded on. There are some things that need updated throughout the article.