User:Taramazza/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.


 * Criminal Psychology: (Criminal psychology)
 * I have chosen this article because I am interested in Psychology along with Criminal justice.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentence of the lead defines criminal psychology so that readers are aware to what the article's topic is, therefore, yes there is a clear and concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a sense, I feel like somethings are missing in the lead. I think it could've used more information to do with the four roles andkey studies. However, the lead did allude to legal uses of criminal psychology.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include information that isn't present in the remainder of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not overly detailed and it does a decent job of being concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the articles content is relevant to criminal psychology.
 * Is the content up-to-date? I believe the content is up-to-date. However, there are always new psychology studies to do with criminal acts popping up so there is always room for newer information in any Wikipedia page.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I believe there could be more content added that'll help the reader become more educated. For example, there could be more information in the applied criminal psychology section and the key studies section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article does mention historically underrepresented populations such as the mentally ill.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? I believe this article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No heavily biased claims towards a particular position stand out to me.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe the article doesn't over or under represent any viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is not persuasion, just a sharing of information and facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are some facts that don't seem fully backed up and could be further verified.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current. Many are in the 2005-2019 range.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are many diverse authors cited.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For me personally, this article was an easy read. I did google a few words just for a better understanding but that's something I do a lot so it was concise a clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did find a few grammatical errors, but no spelling errors. The majority of the grammatical errors were due to the fact that the contributor didn't make some words plural when they should've been, one was adding a comma where it wasn't needed and lastly, the contributor used the word "was" when "were" was supposed to be used. All but one of these errors were in the last paragraph of the Profiling section of the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections make sense and are organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images in this article.
 * Are images well-captioned? Does not apply.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Does not apply.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Does not apply.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a lot of edits going on in the talk page such as accusations of possible plagiarism. There are some small edits.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? There seems to be two WikiProjects for this article and three course assignments.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? People seem to not be putting a lot of blame on others on the talk page, but rather just changing it correctly and explaining why and how it makes it better.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I believe this is a decent article where readers can learn valid information.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is right to the point, no unnecessary reading, and lays out good sections for organization.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more information, correcting the grammatical errors, and double checking all facts and backing them up with secondary sources would make this article better.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is well-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: