User:Simsimsim29/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article on forensic psychology because it is extremely interesting and provides a comprehensive overview of the field, including its history, practical applications, legal relevance, and ethical considerations.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section provides a clear definition of forensic psychology and its applications in legal settings and includes a brief description of major sections, such as history, training, and practice. However, it is incredibly detailed and could be more concise.
The content covered in the article is highly relevant to the subject of forensic psychology, covering history, training, ethics, and practical applications. It is also quite up-to-date, as it references modern cases, research, and how the field has evolved, and citing such sources, which ensures credibility. However, some areas lack depth, particularly contemporary challenges like implicit bias in risk assessments or the impact of forensic psychology in wrongful convictions. It also does not explicitly address historically underrepresented populations, such as racial disparities or gender considerations in forensic assessments.
The article maintains a neutral tone and presents information in a scholarly, professional way, but some sections lean toward overgeneralization, such as discussions on forensic profiling, which lack counter arguments regarding its limitations.
This article was quite good, and very detailed, but could address some biases in forensic assessments, and maybe add more visual content.