User:RMurley/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Cognitive neuropsychology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article about cognitive neuropsychology has an opening sentence that lets you know what this branch of psychology is looking at exactly. Article doesn't go into what the rest of the major sections will be but rather gives a little more depth as to what this branch of psychology is. The lead doesn't include any information not given in the rest of the article. The lead of this article essentially gives a concise definition of what cognitive neuropsychology is and giving an example of what someone in this field would study.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content seems relevant to the topic at hand with it's contents mainly focusing on the history that lead up to the development of this field in psychology. Content's history seems accurate but that's all that the article has. It has no mention of any more up to date work currently being worked on/already done in the field. Article could use some updating as the last reference was from 2013. Although the article doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, it wouldn't make sense for it to. It does however highlight a fairly new subfield in neuropsychology that isn't talked about a whole lot unless it's something you specialize in or are interested in.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Article is neutral with giving just the facts of what cognitive neuropsychology is, the history behind its development and the "typical" practices for a psychology who studies in this subfield. Nothing seemed to be biased towards a particular position nor are there any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. Everything seems to be worded in a factual manner as to not try to persuade anyone or anything. It's simply telling you what cognitive neuropsychology is and what those in the field do/tend to study.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

No, there have been a few claims/facts presented without any research supporting them. Although they aren't trying to persuade anyone a certain way, they have no credible support behind them. I think there's more out there that exists that would be good additions to this article. As mentioned previously, there's no mention of anything current that is going on in the field. Sources are fairly current with the oldest being from 1868 and the newest being from 2013. Although this is not terribly old (the 2013 article), it was written over 6 years ago so the page could use some additions. Additionally the article only has 7 references all together which doesn't help the credibility of the article. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of authors working on this nor has this article really been updated anytime recently. All the links I tried clicking on do work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

For what is there, the article is well written and fairly easy to read. With only 2 subsections the ordering of information flows in a logical way and it (in my opinion) is written free of grammatical or spelling errors. It's broken down into sections that make sense but the article could do with more sections in general.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes a few images that give a good visual of parts of the area of the brain cognitive neuropsychologists look at the most as well as helping give a visual to events in history that led to the development of this field. Images are labeled but could be worded better/differently. Images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as all images were released into public domain. Images fit well within the article (they are by the text which mentions them).


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There really weren't any conversations on the talk page other than mentioning they haven't talked about the criticisms associated with this topic. The overall status of the article is "start" which means it's in the beginning stages but it's also of high importance (as it's rated pink). As far as I can tell it's part of the psychology WikiProjects. This isn't a topic we've discussed in class but it's something that's lacking any mention of the work with children they have done. This type of view is used to study pediatric populations who have, specifically, undergone a traumatic brain injury.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The articles strengths include that it's concise and gives a thorough explanation of what cognitive neuropsychology is and the history behind the development of this field. As mentioned previously, the article could be improved by adding more current work that has been done and the findings as well as future directions/what's still unanswered in this field as well. Overall, this is a good start to the topic but there's room for more. The theoretical underpinnings were really well covered but how those come into play now at this point in time weren't mentioned at all.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: