User:Pammul/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](Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it contains a general overview of clinical psychology and I intend to study the subject more in-depth in grad school. It matters because clinical psychology allows professionals to help other people to feel better. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is a good general overview of the subject.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
The introductory is concise and includes a brief description of the topic including its history. The tone of the article is informative or neutral. Regarding balance of the article, under Training and Certification the article is more informative of the U.K. clinical psychology doctorate. It is more descriptive about the process of obtaining a doctorate in psychology for the U.K. paragraph when compared to the paragraph explaining the same process in the U.S. However the rest of the section is well balanced. The overall content of the article seems appropriate for the topic since there is a thorough overview of the history of clinical psychology, the different methods used in the field, measurement domains, etc. Sources are reputable and the links to them work as well. The article is rated as B-class. The talk-page discussion seems to be balanced with people putting their thoughts about improving the article. Overall, the article is well-developed with appropriate tone, organization, images, and sources.