User talk:18roo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychology - link to the article

- Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? I chose this article to evaluate because when looking through the choices of psychology articles this one caught my attention. My first impression of the article was how impressive the organization of the content seemed. The article has labeled sections, links to provide extra information, and multiple pages filled with countless information.

Evaluate the article: Lead section 1. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the sentence clearly tells the reader what psychology is. 2. Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I believe the lead provides a brief indication about every topic they discus throughout the article by telling the reader what the article has instore in a short but sweet way. 3. Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) All the information provided in the lead is present in depth with details about each one. 4. Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content The lead is fairly concise judging by the length of the article. 5. Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content talked about in this article correlates with the topic. 6. Is the content up-to-date? The content seems to be up-to-date. 7. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? After looking through the article I do not see any information that does not belong or missing. 8. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I do not believe this article shows any gaps and I think all history about the topic was addressed well. Tone and Balance

9. Is the article neutral? The article seems to be informative and only relaying facts about each section. 10. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that seem to be biased. 11. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? This article just simply seems to be giving information nothing was overused or underused. 13. Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes I believe they are represented well. 14. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In this article I do not believe there is a way to persuade the reader in any way. This article is just relaying information and details about each section while staying on track with the topic.

15. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Throughout the article every name, foundation, and term is followed by a link with more information on that specific fact. 16. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? All the sources stay on track with the topic. 17. Are the sources current? Many of the sources are before 2016, I would say these are not current enough. 18. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Based on the charts there seem to be many editors that worked in this article. 19. Check a few links. Do they work? All the links I tried work.

20.Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? From what I have read this article is very well written, clear, and easy to follow along with. 21. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? This article does not have any errors that I can find. 22. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization of this article is what I liked about it in the first place. All the sections are labeled and easy to find, there are links within the text to other sources, and all the information is easy to grasp.

23. Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? This article provides many images within the different sections with descriptions to explain what is happening in each one. They also provide links to almost every one providing further information. 24. Are images well-captioned? The images provide great descriptions about what the reader is seeing. 25. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe every image follows the regulations regarding copywrite. 26. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? All the images are labeled and put on the same side in a very organized way.

27. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There does not seem to be any conversation behind the scenes of the topic. 28. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated top- importance which shows how dependable this source is. This is article is not apart of WikiProjects. 29. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article discusses the biology a bit more and also goes deeper into many different topics I had not idea about. For example there was a section about the military which I thought was fascinating.

Overall impressions 30. What is the article's overall status? The article overall status is top-performance. 31. What are the article's strengths? The articles strengths are detailed information, organization, and clarity. 32. How can the article be improved? The way I believe this article can be improved is by adding history to the beginning introduction a little more. I feel like the article did not discuss this topic much in the lead, but it is a main section in the overall article. 33. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this article is well developed especially for how lengthy it is.