User talk:DoritheaEmil

I visited the “Depth psychology” article on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: citations, completeness, and voice.

While reading this article, I noticed there were a lot of wiki links that led to relevant information such as different psychologists and common terms used in this field of study. In the reference section, the sources were fairly up to date (as of within the last 20 years). The article itself was written five years ago which makes the citations more relevant. Unfortunately some links did not yield any information on the subject. A large portion of the references listed were books which could be opened online. Although the article itself had many references, there were individual sections where there were no sources cited.

The completeness of the article was another factor that stuck out to me. “Depth psychology” was broken into three different categories noted as Psychoanalytic view, Adlerian view, and Jungian view. One section did not have any information on it while another had a little, and the Jungian view section had a lot of information about it. Because of the difference in the amount of information, it brought up the question, “could the author have been biased to a specific area of the field?”

The voice in this article was very formal and grammatically correct. As far as the language of the article, it seemed non-bias. The only reason I have to believe there could be some bias is because of the absence of information as I mentioned earlier. The author did well with summarizing the topic as well as giving background information, such as key psychologists and making connections to similar topics.

In conclusion, I believe this is a very successful article because it gave plenty of resources to back up the information shared. There were a few subtopics that were not well covered, or covered at all but there was little bias and the information given was relevant and formal.