User:Divdiv25/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Attachment theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article since I am interested in attachment theories and particularly the three attachment styles. Attachment theory is an extremely powerful theory that has been cited by many different psychological studies. My preliminary impression of it is that the article seemed neutral and covered several different aspects of attachment theory.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Attachment theory is important because it explains how early interactions with caregivers and interactions in future relationships can have profound impacts on future behavior and relationships.

For the most part, the content of the article is up to date and relevant to the main topic; however, there is a section about defining attachment that is not concise. The article's content is relevant to the topic.

The lead includes an introductory sentence that defines attachment theory very vaguely, it doesn't explain what the theory is and rather just explains what the theory is concerned about. The lead does a good job briefly describing main sections of article and is fairly concise. The lead doesn't include information that isn't present in article.

The article discusses the three main types of attachment styles (secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant) and viewpoints are neutral and doesn't attempt to persuade a reader one way or another.

The majority of the facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources that are current. Most of the citations are from well known psychological journals and books. There are frequent citations, except in the section about attachment style in adults there are fewer citations and sections about cultural differences in attachment styles. There are some sections where citations are needed. The links in the sources seem to be working and up to date.

The article is well written with few grammatical areas. There are certain sections (such as the first section about attachment in general) that can be more concise. The different sections of the article is good, although it would be more practical to create a "culture" section of the article.

There could be more images used in this article, there are only a few and some of the ones used don't seem relevant. They are cited correctly and captions are good.

The talk page discusses how some work could be used for citations, but there isn't much feedback. It has a B-class rating and was a former featured article. It was part of several Wikiprojects (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). The content brings up attachment styles we haven't discussed in class such as disorganized attachment.

Overall I think this a good article that gives a great general understanding of attachment styles and attachment theory. I think the strengths of the article include the descriptions of the different attachment styles. The article can be improved by writing more in the criticism section and by elaborating on categorization differences across cultures. It could also be improved by adding more citations in certain areas. It is well developed but could use improvement in the sections about culture.