User talk:CassidyMoses/Forensic psychology

I think you're approaching this task wisely and addressing MANY of the issues that were cited on the previous talk page. You've done a great job so far! Editing and re-structuring an already existing article is a difficult task. My suggestions are to pick your battles and know that people can (and eventually will) pick up where you leave off. You can leave the article feeling complete or whole, even if you are not able to discuss every issue that you planned. It is up to you, but I think I would focus on sections that have the most broad appeal to a general audience (i.e., History; Ethics) and in the cases where you have made notes to yourself (Assessments of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations), I would lean towards only completing them if you have time. There may be ways to neutralize some of the existing language so that you are not completely re-writing the whole article. Or, there may be ways to delete text or change subheadings so that the content that appears there is more relevant. For instance, I would keep the prior text on Training and Education, but I like your "roles of a forensic psychologist". It integrates prior content, but edits it down so that it is digestible. But, there is some good content that you wouldn't want to completely delete. For instance, "Some famous psychologists in the field include Saul Kassin, very widely known for studying false confessions, and Elizabeth Loftus, known for her research on eyewitness memory. She has provided expert witness testimony for many cases" appears in the academic researcher section, but I could imagine ending a history section these well known psychologists as well (who are currently linked to their wikipedia pages). Phia Salter (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)