User:SocialAttractionStudent1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Overchoice

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate this article because I want to use its information to build an article about rejection mindsets.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead section
 * The lead sentence was very descriptive and concise; however, nowhere in the rest of the introduction is there a reference to the main sections of the article. All information in the lead, though, is expanded upon throughout the article.
 * Content
 * The content is all relevant to the topic, but I believe it is not up to date with more current examples of choice overload. It does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Tone and Balance
 * The article remains mostly neutral in its explanations of this impairment, with no heavy bias towards supporting or refuting research done around the topic, with no over/under-representation of viewpoints.
 * Sources and References
 * All facts are backed up and sourced contemporarily and well. Links work.
 * Organization and writing quality
 * The article is concise to read without any problems in grammar, spelling, or organization.
 * Images and Media
 * The article does not include image to enhance understanding.
 * Talk page discussion
 * The talk page 2 years ago was looking to include a section about replicacy of experiments done to prove the existence of the psychological phenomenon. The article is rated Start-class, Low/Mid-importance and is in WikiProject Business, Home Living, Marketing & Advertising, Media, Psychology, Retailing, and Sociology. There is no differences in the way Wikipedia discusses the topic as compared to class.
 * Overall impressions
 * The article looks to have a really great basic framework, strengthened by the detail and attention put in each section. It can be improved by adding specific examples of this coming into play. The article is well-developed but could use some more work.
 * The article does not include image to enhance understanding.
 * Talk page discussion
 * The talk page 2 years ago was looking to include a section about replicacy of experiments done to prove the existence of the psychological phenomenon. The article is rated Start-class, Low/Mid-importance and is in WikiProject Business, Home Living, Marketing & Advertising, Media, Psychology, Retailing, and Sociology. There is no differences in the way Wikipedia discusses the topic as compared to class.
 * Overall impressions
 * The article looks to have a really great basic framework, strengthened by the detail and attention put in each section. It can be improved by adding specific examples of this coming into play. The article is well-developed but could use some more work.
 * Overall impressions
 * The article looks to have a really great basic framework, strengthened by the detail and attention put in each section. It can be improved by adding specific examples of this coming into play. The article is well-developed but could use some more work.