User:Vanessa R Garcia/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an articlee[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Evolutionary psychology
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose to evaluate this article because I study evolutionary biology and I am becoming increasingly interested in psychology. I also noticed that this article had a C rating so I wanted to discern where it could possibly use improvement.

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions

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?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation[edit]

The lead has a concise and informative introductory sentence. This section includes a decent overview of the scope, applications, and general critiques of evolutionary psychology. The lead doesn't include information that is irrelevant to the rest of the article and is concise without being lacking.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

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?

Content evaluation[edit]

The content is relevant to the topic in that the article goes over the major ideals and premises that constitute the field. The content is mostly up to date except that many citations are needed, so this is the exception. It seems that the article could offer some more depth on the fields which evolutionary psychology is applied as a paradigm for problem solving. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; however, it does briefly address the controversy around evolutionary psychology being applied to abnormal psychology behaviors such as rape or murder.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

The article is neutral in its presentation of the topic and there does not appear to be bias. There is an objective representation of the field. The only thing I might suggest is that a reviewer search for other relevant theories/hypotheses to include because the author says things like, "Another cool theory is..." which leads me to believe that the selection of content may not be fully representative of the field.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

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?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

The weakest part of this article is that it is lacking many in text citations. The sources in the bibliography seem to be a thorough dig into the literature. Given that it is an interdisciplinary topic, and going through the sources, it seems that there are in fact a diverse spectrum of authors cited. The links that I tested do work.

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

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?

Organization evaluation[edit]

This article has good flow and is an accessible source of information on the topic. I found it clear to read and it gave me a good depth of knowledge on what evolutionary psychology embodies. The quality of the article's rhetoric is decent as well. Lastly, the sections reflect the organization that was presented in the lead, which I found helpful for navigating the topics.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

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?

Images and media evaluation[edit]

The article includes minimal images. The images have simple captions and adhere to the copyright regulations. I feel like there are probably diagrams from papers published in the field or created for conferences that would be a useful addition.

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

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?

Talk page evaluation[edit]

The talk page is relatively short. It includes a suggestion from one user on improving the "personality" section of the article by adding some more depth and citations. Another user was discussing a topic ban, and they referenced a a different talk page. It is rated as a C-class overall and is a part of numerous wikiprojects such as c-class neuroscience and anthropology to name a few.

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

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?

Overall evaluation[edit]

The articles overall status is C-class. I think the article is strong in the breadth of information that it covers while still being general enough to fit the "encyclopedia" genre. The article could benefit from additional citations and perhaps some more depth in the applications sections. I think the article is slightly underdeveloped in some areas, but it has a solid framework to begin with.

Optional activity[edit]

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

Link to feedback: