User:Psychologylearner1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ecopsychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think like many people, I have climate anxiety; however, I am also incredibly aware of the benefits of nature to our psychology. While researching the intersection of these two polar opposites, I ran across a doctoral program in Ecopsychology. I was amazed. Before that moment, I hadn't known this particular relationship had been legitimized into a field of study. We frequently find indigenous and other marginalized communities at the forefront of climate issues; furthermore, often times they also have a cultural investment in healing the soul and psyche through a connection to our earth. It is grounding, and an incredible tool to combat climate anxiety.

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * The opening sentence is fair. It could do a better job of using layman's terms to introduce this incredibly important and nuanced subject. The use of words such as "transdisciplinarity" and "synthesis" creates a barrier to the average reader as these are often technical, more scientific terms for easy to understand concepts.
 * The lead includes the concepts in broad terms that are expanded on and detailed later in the article. The rest of the lead section explains the thought process behind ecopsychology's importance much better than the introductory sentence.
 * Fortunately, the article's body contains the highlights of the leading section.
 * It is precise, and, I think, adds just enough detail to keep a reader interested. However, the language and readability is still low, in my opinion, if the intention is to engage and keep an average reader interested in reading more.

Content


 * Yes and no. The basis of ecopsychology is derived from longstanding traditions of BIPOC communities; however, I only saw one, very minor mention of that in this article. The psychology giants referenced in the article did not create ecopsychology, they merely named it. These white men, if I'm being frank, should not be the bulk nor the center of this topic. They may have coined terms and opened up clinical study of this interdisciplinary, but they are not origin point of this concept - BIPOC communities are. That needs to be reflected in this article better.
 * Not particularly. The article mentions several references for further investigation; however, the most recent supplemental reading in the article (a non-source) is from 1996. More up to date research exists, and it should be used.
 * Yes. As I mentioned previously, this article is not expansive on the rich history and origins of ecopsychology before it was "ecopsychology". It lacks in depth critical thinking, information, and proper organization of importance.
 * No, but it absolutely should. Though BIPOC communities are responsible for much of the basis of what we know about ecopsychology, they are often the most disenfranchised in terms of being able to connect with and utilize the key concepts of the subject for which they pioneered (ie. lack of communal green spaces in marginalized communities).
 * Once again, no, but it definitely should. Concepts and practices of human relationships with the earth are found in almost every marginalized community's history. They understand the healing power of nature in a way non-BIPOC people never could.

Tone and Balance


 * Yes, the article is very matter of fact. There is no persuasive tone in my opinion.
 * No, the article is consistently neutral, only presenting facts, not opinions.
 * The entire article and its sections are very much lacking on breadth of knowledge. The viewpoints represented in this article are very surface level, very generic, and lacking an expansion of background information that is relevant to the subject.
 * There is not enough information in the article to answer that question accurately. The article currently only states one contributors fundamental principles with nothing to compare it to.
 * No, the article does nothing more than state the fact and tie concepts together. There is no pathos, but there is also little proof of ethos either.

Sources and References


 * There are some references that seem to be less academic based sources, but most seem sufficient to pass Wikipedia's standards.
 * No. Most of the sources are connected to the three psychology giants the article focused on, whether it be books they wrote, articles they spoke in, or analysis of their beliefs.
 * There are some current sources; however, the majority are 10+ years or older.
 * No, absolutely not. As mentioned previously, most of the sources were either written by or about the three white male psychology giants the article is centered around.
 * Yes, absolutely. Sources written by a more diverse and modern demographic.
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality


 * The article is well stated if it were intended to be in a scientific or an academic journal. It is not easy to read and comprehend without extra effort to connect unnecessarily over stated concepts.
 * I will be frank, I make frequent careless mistake so I may not be the most accurate copy editor right now. Though I will say, there were no immediately recognizable grammatical or spelling errors that I saw.
 * Though the information is sparse and very narrow in scope, the article is well organized for what is presented, no ambiguity.

Images and Media


 * No
 * There are no images in the article currently.
 * This question is not applicable to this article.
 * This question is not applicable to this article.

Talk Page discussion


 * There are multiple conversation about the low quality of the current article and about how to increase its reliability and scope.
 * The article is the educational assignment of WikiProject Anthropology's Mount Allison University team who appear to be curating more reliable and diverse sources and viewpoints. It is also included in WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Religion. The article is rated Start-class, Low-importance for all WikiProjects.


 * We have not talked about this topic in class; however, I do know we would speak with more acknowledgement of scope and critical thinking if we had.

Overall impressions


 * The article is overall rated start-class, low-importance.
 * The article's strengths are the fact that it can paint a more succinct picture of ecopsychology with the its choice of words. While it may not be easy to read, the effort for comprehension over readability are deemed worth it if the reader wanted a more vivid picture.
 * There are many ways this article could be improved upon. While I believe the bones are there, the article needs to center BIPOC communities and their frontier practices. The article does need to be simplified a bit and beefed up with more recent dialogue and sources about the topic.
 * Very, very underdeveloped. The current article are the metaphorical dry ingredients in a cake decorating process. The foundation is there, but again, it is very far from a well written article.