User:NickRec/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Entitlement (psychology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because the concept was interesting and I feel the article itself needed improving.

Evaluate the article

Nicolas Recalde/PY 490/September 7, 2024

Lead Section

The lead to this article is poor. It is only one sentence, but to its credit it gives a good definition from WebMD of the psychological concept of entitlement.  

It does not do much to set the tone of the article. It provides a definition, but it does not provide any other supplementary information. It would be extremely useful if there were more examples given and a broader background context as to how entitlement operates.  

There are two articles I am currently analyzing to try and formulate worthwhile edits: the articles on Ezra Pound and Sex and gender differences in autism. Ezra Pound's article, although not related to psychology, is one of Wikipedia's featured pages and is masterfully edited to encompass his entire legacy. Looking at the talk pages, there is an extreme amount of coordination and community involved to encompass Pound's extensive and controversial life.

Similarly, Sex and gender differences in autism is a very extensive and well-attended article. Its title is self-explanatory and there is a lot of involvement from many neurodivergent individuals to give the article bountiful information.  

Both articles' lead sections are very extensive and provide much background and contextual information to address the topic at hand. Although both may be a bit too lengthy, according to Wikipedia guidelines, they are nonetheless particularly useful and interesting to read. I hope to extend upon the lead section with information that is useful and provides interesting context. I promise not to make it as long as Ezra Pound's introduction.

Content

The article's content is diverse and extensive, but I dislike the lack of distinct sections. There are only two sections in the entire article, but there is a fair amount of information provided on the topic.  

There is information on how entitlement affects both children and adults and the different psychological principles that encompass the term. I cannot help feeling, however, that something may be missing or there is a lack of cohesion when tying everything together. It is hard for me to explain but whenever I read it, there is a gap somewhere there should not be. I am still wondering what it could be, but I am not surprised it is so. Entitlement is not a very extensive topic and would not be prioritized among Wikipedia editors.  

The article's content is related to the topic, thankfully, and the information is up to date. Almost all the citations are from the last fifteen years and seem universal or relevant.  

Entitlement is a universal concept that may not be lenient on underrepresented communities. The article does not go into economic or demographic detail regarding the topic, but entitlement can affect anyone even in different racial or economic communities. Although I wish the article went more in depth with childhood development or adolescence, that can be an area to focus on in my editing.  

Tone and Balance

The article is written from a neutral point of view and, as far as I am concerned, is not leaning toward any agenda. It is presenting the data it is cited and pointing out the facts from that research.  

I am glad there is no mention of economic status within the article because I feel that entitlement can be attributed to anyone. Especially in children.  

There are no minority or fringe viewpoints within the article, I believe, but one researcher toward the end is focused on heavily. I am unsure if this is a bad move for the research because we are advised to not lean too heavily on one point of view, but the quoted material from Boszormenyi-Nagy, the researcher, does add some interesting information to the topic.  

Overall, the article remains neutral with different instances of research, while I may have to investigate the final paragraph to make sure it does not support a biased view of the topic.

Sources and References

There are fourteen cited resources in the article with only two resources being older than fourteen years. There is a mix of websites and research articles as well as books.  

Two problems occur but I am unsure of this one: a handful of resources cite literature, as in physical books, but no link is present. I will need to review the terms and make sure this is not against Wikipedia recommendations. There is another problem with direct studies being cited, as in primary resources, which are unadvised by Wikipedia. I would not change it myself, personally, but there may need to be a more diverse array of cited materials.

At least one citation leads to a dead page: citation four. It is the fourth cited source in the article. It will need to be updated with a new link, and I am sure it exists in the current form on the Mayo website. I have already made a note to address that.

The sources are thorough, however, and reflect the content of the article. As far as I have noticed, there is not any foul play in store with this information. There is somewhat of a diverse spectrum of authors being cited, at least the information is diverse, but few are called out by name. I am unsure if these researchers were marginalized or historically ignored, however, but I notice a few names I do not recognize.  

There does happen to be two peer-reviewed articles cited with links. They are citations six and eight. I was not sure if this was advised but now the prompt is encouraging it, but I wonder if the article needs more peer-reviewed work to be cited.  

Organization and writing quality

The organization of the article feels a bit loose. It reads as if I am analyzing a compilation of entitlement related research than an organized, uniform entry. I hate that I am unsure of how to fix that and addressing the problem would probably require more research and time than this assignment calls for.  

I admit that, although the article feels loose, it does separate each entry into its own topic and each segment coalesces into the proper context for the topic. The research at hand is well dispersed and quotations are only used when they are needed. I would organize the information chronologically, entitlement within children first then go down the line in terms of age, but that may not be the best approach.

The article is easy to read, although some terms and concepts may need some context to understand. I do not think Wikipedia is an enthusiastic fan of contextualizing within the articles themselves so I will not suggest that the editor should supplement the article with constant asides regarding definitions or concepts. People can just click on the terms to learn them in their dedicated articles.  

One last complaint I have with the writing is that the first section after the lead uses too much of a quotation from Sam Vaknin. It could be shortened or written in the editor's own words.

Images and media

There are no images or media whatsoever in the article.

While I would say this is an undesirable decision, I am unsure of what images could be added to enhance the article. For the "affect" article, the first image is of a mother smiling at her daughter. While it represents what “affect” stands for, it is not a necessary image. That is how I feel with adding media to this concept. While a photo or two when needed could stand out in the article, I am unsure of what to add that could truly contextualize or professionally add to the topic.

Talk page discussion

The talk page is a mess. No one agrees on what the article should discuss, whether there should be a disambiguation page, if the page is or is not overly specific to the U.S., if it is politically biased, whether the information cited is trustworthy or not, if this is the worst article on the entire platform, etc. One commenter said this about the page: "this page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It articulates the very worst of that this platform is capable of." I do not know if I agree with any of this but given the errors I have noticed so far in the article, it could be improved to an extent.

The article is listed in Wikiprojects as C-class but with high importance to the field of social work.  

The way this article talks about the topic is different from how I learn psychological concepts in my classes. With one person focusing on the research and organization of lessons regarding a specific topic, the work becomes streamlined and, through drafting and revision, can be presented in an organized and informative fashion. The article itself, although interesting, feels disjointed and not enough effort has been put into organizing the material. After reading some of the comments, I do not have full confidence that the information being presented is accurate to its fullest potential.

Overall impressions

I chose a good article to tackle and attempt to improve. It has its shares of flaws, but I am fascinated with the topic at hand and think it is a good starting point to learn Wikipedia editing. I am wary of the possible hostility that might arise from other editors of the article, but few people seem to tend to it.  

I want to focus on organization of the sections, minimizing quotations, adding new sources, and attempt to bring everything into a cohesive whole. Maybe it's a lofty and expansive expectation, but I want to give my all to something that could benefit the website.