User:Psychcap/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?

Military psychology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I grew up in the military and one career path I am very interested in working in is with fleet and family services. They provide counseling and therapy to military personnel, retired military and families in the military.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article is written very poorly. It gives a short but inclusive summary on what military psychology is, how it is used and what it is most often used for. Unfortunately, the article does not reflect what the lead section discusses. There are some grammatical errors in the lead section, like a missing comma or a run on sentence. The first sentence does not categorize what military psychology is other than an applied psychological science. The second sentence describes military psychology much better and should be moved to the first sentence. The lead section does not include many or almost any sections that the articles goes into heavy detail about. Mental health stressors like PTSD are mentioned in the lead section but never again in the article. I wish the article explained the care psychologist provide and how they help with these mental health stressors. The main thing this lead section has going for it is that it is fairly concise.

The content throughout this article is not relevant to the topic. It is possible it could be if it was the focus of the article but there are way to many subtopics included and some are a brief few sentences while there is one that only has one sentence. Some subtopics have far more details than others. I believe their source "handbook of military psychology" dated in 1991 to be outdated. Many military rules have changed since then, especially in the past few years alone so I know the handbook has changed. They have a more recent source for the military handbook which makes me believe their older source to be un useful. I believe a lot of content does not belong in this article. Many subtopics could easily have a whole other article written about them. The focus of the article is very unclear.

The information provided seems to be neutral. I cannot point out any biases or evidence of the written trying to persuade the viewer.

A majority of the sources come from "Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology." I researched this journal and it seems reliable but the sources for the article should be from a larger variety of journals. The sources seem to cover a wide time frame and one article is from this year 2022.

One thing that stood out to me was the three images provide in the entirety of the article. None of the pictures are necessary or help with the understanding of the concepts provided. The images seem awkward and out of place. I can't find a source connected to the images which means they most likely violate wikipedias copyright regulations.

I was appalled to read the talk page for this article. Maybe I am very confused with the purpose of the talk page or the individual who wrote about calculus and quantum theories was confused. The section titles Kryptos was very interesting and very unhelpful in regards to the topic of the article I am evaluating. I don't know why that is there. Some other editors make some good comments but I feel a lot of reorganization and focus needs to be done on this article.

I was very excited to read the lead section then very disappointed by the rest of the article. Though it does include many interesting concept, the concept of military psychology could be much better explained. The article went completely off track. From the lead section I was expecting talk about psychological approaches to helping military individuals cope with mental health while being active duty and the different approaches to helping individuals with PTSD. I wanted to learn more about how psychologist help support our military. The article is poorly developed and because of the mass of information provided I do not think it has many strengths. I could say length and detail are two of this articles strengths. It lacks in organization and it needs depth on a more focused topic.

To improve this article it needs focused and precise information about support psychologist provide for the military, teachings and research they provide. It needs to include a wider variety of journal articles. Some pictures that could help with complex topics could be essential. If all the topics the article currently has are to remain then the lead section needs to be rewritten to include a brief summary of all the topics covered.