User talk:Gmp76/Evaluate an Article

Forensic Psychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychology

I chose to evaluate this article because I am currently taking a forensic psychology class. Forensic psychology matters because it allows profilers to be able to predict the behaviors of criminals and to help solve crimes. I initially found this article to be instructive as it provided great detail of the history and roles in forensic psychology.

The lead section of this article included an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Moreover, the lead is concise and includes all information that is present throughout the article. However, the lead does not fully include a description of all the articles major sections some of which include ethics in forensic psychology, salary in forensic psychology, and roles in forensic psychology.

All the content throughout the article is relevant to the topic. The content of this article was last updated in January of 2023; therefore, it is up to date. I feel as though there is no content missing or does not belong in the article. The article is neutral and none of the claims appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. I think one section of the article that seemed a bit underrepresented was the section education and training and could be expanded to include Master and PhD programs. Additionally, the article does not seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

For the most part, all facts in the article were backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, however, there were a few facts in the Training and Education section that needed to be cited. All sources seemed to be thorough, which reflected the available literature on the topic. Furthermore, the majority of sources are current with a few being not so current. All of the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Additionally, I feel that there are some better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites. I also clicked on some of the links and found ones that did not work.

This article is professionally written. More specifically, this article was easy to read, and not difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, there were no visible grammatical and spelling errors in the article. This article was broken down into selections that were easy for the reader to follow and stay engaged. Each section that the article provided was relevant to the major points that were discussed.

This article does provide one image that is relevant to the topic and supplies readers with a visual representation that can enhance comprehension of the topic. To continue, the image is also well captioned and adhered to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. The image used in the article also is laid out so that the reader can glance over after reading the context surrounding the image.

Unfortunately, there are no conversations regarding how to accurately represent this topic. This article is related to topics such as law enforcement, crime, and psychology. In addition, the article is also a part of Wiki projects related to those topics. It is important to note that this article is of either high or mid importance to each of its Wiki projects, which shows its relevance to the topic.

Wikipedia discusses this topic differently from class discussions because it focuses on strictly historical context and evaluations of approaches within forensic psychology. Furthermore, in class discussions we provide our personal thoughts about the historical context provided. In conclusion, this article did an excellent job of providing the audience with knowledge about various aspects regarding forensic psychology. One strength that this article has is organization. As stated, each section is well developed and relevant to each major point. This is critically important when drafting an article because the organization could affect the overall comprehension of the reader. One area of improvement would be adding more content to the advocacy section of the article. By further developing this section it could help argue its relevance. To conclude, after making small edits it is fair to suggest that this article is well developed. Gmp76 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)