User:Ashseymour/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it relates to linguistics as well as cognitive theory. I am very interested in cognitive psychology and being in a linguistics course as well allowed me to tie the two together. My preliminary impression of it was way different than my actual impression on it. I expected to read about psycholinguistics and its use in the field of cognitive psychology, but I was wrong. It was mainly about cognitive theory in relation to linguistics when evaluating composition.

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.)

Starting off with the lead section, the lead was good but not quite strong enough. It confused me a little bit and I was not really sure where the writer was going until the end of the lead section. It does include a brief summary of the article and is concise, just not quite clear as it could be. The content of the article is straightforward, factual, and unbiased. The sections are laid out clearly as well, but still some wording may need change. The article's information is relative and up to date though. The overall tone and balance of the article is neutral and informative. Seems to be no bias from my perspective as it addresses theories and research within the field of cognitive linguistics. All facts are backed up by sources, but the sources are a little out dated. There is a multitude of sources and authors that provide a substantial amount of information for the topic at hand. The links tested do work for the references. I believe there could be a few sources that are better fit for this article because the ones chosen are old. The organization of the article is laid out concisely and in a manner easy to read. It does not have any spelling or grammatical issues that I noticed. There are no images provided in this article, but maybe one or two could be useful. There is no talk page discussion, but the article is a part of a WikiProject. Overall, the article is good, but could use some improvement. The article is concise and well-organized, but the biggest improvement would be the clarity of the information. I would say the article could use a little more developing and then it would be a great source.