User:Nkerry2265/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Personality psychology
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This is one of my main interests in my schooling. I believe the kind of information included in this article will educate anyone who chooses to read it, and I would like to evaluate it and make sure information is correct and updated.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is also links if you would like to go to a section first.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is slightly over detailed but it is a dense topic. It all made sense to be here.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the entire article pertains to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Most of it seems to be up-to-date, while there could be more research mentioned so we can see recent articles and research about the topic.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No!

Is the article neutral? As the article is based on scientific research, it is hard to say something biased while writing about it. However, that does happen but the authors seemed to stay neutral in this article.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe theories were represented well and in detail while the biological basis explanation could have more information added on. There is a lot of research and information not included.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, every fact in the article had a link which led to a source you could further observe.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? In most parts. Again, the biological basis sources could have been expanded.
Are the sources current? Yes, although there could have been more recent sources included to provide more information.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is dense and high level information but still provides the information in an easy to read format.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw, it is written academically and well.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down very well. You can find a certain section if needed.T

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There was only two images, there could have been a lot more.
Are images well-captioned? Not too well. They could have been discussed more.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, they are off to the side and small- almost as you would not notice them right away.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is talk to remove original research and add more current rearch.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as B-class and Top-Importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status? B-class.
What are the article's strengths? It is well-written and all facts check out.
How can the article be improved? There can be more recent sources, and some of the article can be better formatted for the developing subject.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed but could use some updating.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~