User talk:Sedb821/sandbox

"Lead Section: Yes, the article has an introductory sentence that clearly introduces the article topic. In this instance, the topic sentence defines the word "uncanny". The lead does a decent job with introducing the article's major sections, by talking about the major contributors to the concept of "uncanny" throughout history (such as Freud). Although not explicitly clear, I think the lead section also introduces the "related theories" section by briefly discussing some interpretations of the "uncanny". I do not see any information in this section that is not presented in the article. I feel like the lead section is slightly over-detailed because it does briefly touch upon the reception of the theory of the uncanny, which I feel like should have just been covered in the article itself. Other than that, I like that the lead section gave readers a brief history on this topic!

Content: Yes, the article's content is related to the topic because it provides information on the history and development of the idea of the uncanny. I think the information is up-to-date considering it covers the history of the Uncanny. I do not think there is any missing information or any information that is out of place. All of the information is relevant to the topic. I'm not entirely sure what an equity gap is, but this article does not seem to deal with any of them. It does not seem to provide any information about any historically underrepresented groups or topics because it covers "the uncanny", which was covered by a huge icon in psychology.

Tone and Balance: Yes, the article is neutral because it focuses on providing the audience with the history of the concept revolving around the uncanny as well as defining this concept. None of the claims seem to be biased because they are more focused on providing facts. None of the viewpoints are under/ over-represented because the article covers the history of the uncanny and how a variety of historical figures of interpreted this concept. This article does not attempt to persuade the reader into any viewpoint.

Sources and References: No, not every single fact in this article seems to have a reliable secondary source to back up its claims. However, every major topic seems to have a reliable second source for reference that reflects the information in this article. The age of the sources vary, but each source seems to provide up-to-date and accurate information. Yes, the sources are written by multiple authors from diverse backgrounds and decades. It is unclear if some of these sources come from historically marginalized individuals, but the sources referenced are from different decades, so there's a lot of perspectives associated with the article. The links in this article do work.

Organization and Quality: Yes, the article is well-written. It is a bit wordy at some points, but the content is still fairly concise and easy to understand. I am not noticing any grammatical or spelling errors in this article. Yes, the article is broken down into sections that reflect the main points.

Images and Media: Yes, this article has images that can help the audience better understand the uncanny. Yes, these images have well-written captions that help readers understand the images even more. I do not notice any copyright infringements with these images. I do not think the image layout is visually pleasing, but I never think image layouts in articles are visually pleasing.

Talk Page Discussion: There are discussions about this article on the talk page and each one points out an unclear section in the article to the reader/ attempts to dispute some of the information provided. These discussions made me reread the article a few times to see if I could spot any factual errors, but I have not seen any. Perhaps the article was updated to correct these previously mentioned errors? This article is apart of the Wikiproject Psychology and is rated as a "Start-class" on the quality scale and "Mid-importance" on the project's importance scale. The talk page has some similarities to how we discussed this topic in class. For example, some of the discussions focus on the meaning of "unheimlich" like we did in class, but they are disputing the definition of the word provided in the article, while we worked as a class to define it.

Overall Status: I think the article's overall status is decent. I think the article's greatest strength was that is discussed the uncanny from neutral position by focusing on its definition and how the theories revolving around the uncanny have developed and evolved over time. Another strength was the clear and conciseness of the content. I cannot think of any major improvements that this article needs, but perhaps it could use a more appealing picture for the "related theories: sections. The first image of the doll was eye catching and was actually the first thing I noticed once the article loaded, but I am not a huge fan of graphs. I would say that this article is well-developed. Despite what the discussions on the talk page say, I felt that this article was easy to understand. If something was not easily understood at first, another part of the article clarified by providing examples or further explaining. ~ Sedb821 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)" -B.D.

This is the evaluation I wrote for the WikiEdu training module last week. I post it on the actual article itself instead of here. Sedb821 (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)