User talk:Mcontris/sandbox

Article Evaluation
I chose to evaluate an article about developmental psychology. There is a large amount of facts in this article. I checked 15-20 facts, and they all looked to be cited correctly and by reliable sources. I thought the article did well to stay on topic. It had many different sections about different aspects of developmental psychology. I did get a little distracted by the historical and theories sections, but those sections were both relevant to the topic. This article did not show biased. The authors did a great job of stating facts, and not using their own opinions. Most of the information for this article comes from peer reviewed articles. Most of the sources are reliable and unbiased. I think the article could have added a little more about the adolescence stage of life. They only have a short section on that, and it is an important stage of development in a human's life. I checked 5 of the links, and they all worked. When reading the original sources and the places where the sources were cited, I did not see any plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The writers did a good job of forming their own opinions. Some of the sources were older, as in 1987, but I don't think that's too old to use or be relevant. I also think the article covered all necessary sections of developmental psychology. ````

I think you did a lovely job on your article evaluation! What type of peer-reviewed articles? Did these conform to the expectations of Wikipedia (i.e., not primary, but rather secondary literature [review papers])? Rahneli (talk)Liz — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)