User:Psychcap/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Military psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I grew up in the military and one career path I am very interested in working in is with fleet and family services. They provide counseling and therapy to military personnel, retired military and families in the military.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article is written very poorly. It gives a short but inclusive summary on what military psychology is, how it is used and what it is most often used for. Unfortunately, the article does not reflect what the lead section discusses. There are some grammatical errors in the lead section, like a missing comma or a run on sentence. The first sentence does not categorize what military psychology is other than an applied psychological science. The second sentence describes military psychology much better and should be moved to the first sentence. The lead section does not include many or almost any sections that the articles goes into heavy detail about. Mental health stressors like PTSD are mentioned in the lead section but never again in the article. I wish the article explained the care psychologist provide and how they help with these mental health stressors. The main thing this lead section has going for it is that it is fairly concise.

The content throughout this article is not relevant to the topic. It is possible it could be if it was the focus of the article but there are way to many subtopics included and some are a brief few sentences while there is one that only has one sentence. Some subtopics have far more details than others. I believe their source "handbook of military psychology" dated in 1991 to be outdated. Many military rules have changed since then, especially in the past few years alone so I know the handbook has changed. They have a more recent source for the military handbook which makes me believe their older source to be un useful. I believe a lot of content does not belong in this article. Many subtopics could easily have a whole other article written about them. The focus of the article is very unclear.

The information provided seems to be neutral. I cannot point out any biases or evidence of the written trying to persuade the viewer.

A majority of the sources come from "Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology." I researched this journal and it seems reliable but the sources for the article should be from a larger variety of journals. The sources seem to cover a wide time frame and one article is from this year 2022.

One thing that stood out to me was the three images provide in the entirety of the article. None of the pictures are necessary or help with the understanding of the concepts provided. The images seem awkward and out of place. I can't find a source connected to the images which means they most likely violate wikipedias copyright regulations.

I was appalled to read the talk page for this article. Maybe I am very confused with the purpose of the talk page or the individual who wrote about calculus and quantum theories was confused. The section titles Kryptos was very interesting and very unhelpful in regards to the topic of the article I am evaluating. I don't know why that is there. Some other editors make some good comments but I feel a lot of reorganization and focus needs to be done on this article.

I was very excited to read the lead section then very disappointed by the rest of the article. Though it does include many interesting concept, the concept of military psychology could be much better explained. The article went completely off track. From the lead section I was expecting talk about psychological approaches to helping military individuals cope with mental health while being active duty and the different approaches to helping individuals with PTSD. I wanted to learn more about how psychologist help support our military. The article is poorly developed and because of the mass of information provided I do not think it has many strengths. I could say length and detail are two of this articles strengths. It lacks in organization and it needs depth on a more focused topic.

To improve this article it needs focused and precise information about support psychologist provide for the military, teachings and research they provide. It needs to include a wider variety of journal articles. Some pictures that could help with complex topics could be essential. If all the topics the article currently has are to remain then the lead section needs to be rewritten to include a brief summary of all the topics covered.