 | 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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is the field of studies that I am going into. One it will help me learn more about the subject but also help others. I think if my editing is informative and helpful whenever someone is trying to look up this field of studies my work can help them.
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.)
Lead Section:
The article's lead paragraph is concise and describes the topic of Forensic Psychology well. The lead has sectioned off the subject by History, Training and education, Practice and research in Forensic Psychology, and Forensic psychological evaluations. These sections also included subsections with more details on the subject. The lead however does not state anything about the sections, such as not including the sections titles or brief information on what will be discussed.While the lead is concise it does not lead to more information that will be talked about.
Content:
The article's content was all relevant to the topic.The article's content could include more up-to-date information including information used in court cases in present time. This article does not mention anything about Wikipedia's equity gaps.
Tone and Balance:
This article was neutral to what has been written on the topic. This article informs the reader without persuading them to join the field of studies.
Sources and References:
Upon looking through the article the sources seam to be reliable and thorough.There is multiple sources from different authors and included historical individuals as well. This article could use more peer-reviewed articles in place of websites. When you click on the links they do work.
Organization and writing Quality:
The article is well written however, the organization of it could be worked on when it comes to the History section. The break down of the sections were written concise and well.
Images and Media:
This article does include an image. However, it could include more images such as founding members of the studies or cases where forensic psychology has helped. The image that is uploaded does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. There could be more visually appealing images added to the article.
Talk page discussions:
There was no discussions on the talk page just showing who edited the article and when. The only thing that was mentioned on the talk page was asking to include more towards the field of psychology, criminology and law enforcement. This article is rated C-class and apart of WikiProjects.
Overall impressions:
Overall the article is well written and concise, nevertheless, it could use more information on the topic. It also could use more visual images on the article. The strengths in the article is that it is informative while not being persuasive. The article uses knowledge on the subject with reliable sources and images. I think the article is yet to be completed and more could be added onto the article with up to date information.
| 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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is the field of studies that I am going into. One it will help me learn more about the subject but also help others. I think if my editing is informative and helpful whenever someone is trying to look up this field of studies my work can help them.
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.)
Lead Section:
The article's lead paragraph is concise and describes the topic of Forensic Psychology well. The lead has sectioned off the subject by History, Training and education, Practice and research in Forensic Psychology, and Forensic psychological evaluations. These sections also included subsections with more details on the subject. The lead however does not state anything about the sections, such as not including the sections titles or brief information on what will be discussed.While the lead is concise it does not lead to more information that will be talked about.
Content:
The article's content was all relevant to the topic.The article's content could include more up-to-date information including information used in court cases in present time. This article does not mention anything about Wikipedia's equity gaps.
Tone and Balance:
This article was neutral to what has been written on the topic. This article informs the reader without persuading them to join the field of studies.
Sources and References:
Upon looking through the article the sources seam to be reliable and thorough.There is multiple sources from different authors and included historical individuals as well. This article could use more peer-reviewed articles in place of websites. When you click on the links they do work.
Organization and writing Quality:
The article is well written however, the organization of it could be worked on when it comes to the History section. The break down of the sections were written concise and well.
Images and Media:
This article does include an image. However, it could include more images such as founding members of the studies or cases where forensic psychology has helped. The image that is uploaded does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. There could be more visually appealing images added to the article.
Talk page discussions:
There was no discussions on the talk page just showing who edited the article and when. The only thing that was mentioned on the talk page was asking to include more towards the field of psychology, criminology and law enforcement. This article is rated C-class and apart of WikiProjects.
Overall impressions:
Overall the article is well written and concise, nevertheless, it could use more information on the topic. It also could use more visual images on the article. The strengths in the article is that it is informative while not being persuasive. The article uses knowledge on the subject with reliable sources and images. I think the article is yet to be completed and more could be added onto the article with up to date information.