User:Fahmed16/sandbox

= Critique of the Biolinguistics article = While there were a few references and many hyperlinks throughout the text, not every fact was referenced with a reliable source in the Biolinguistics article on Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. It is suggested that each paragraph would end with a citation yet more than one section was left without appropriate citation. Though I am not an expert in the subject yet, I can tell that this article still needs multiple edits. It does not provide sufficient information to fully understand the subject. Most topics were relevant to the main article, the only thing that was distracting was related to the lack of detail.

The article did not seem biased in any way. It may not have provided all the theories and hypotheses available, but it did not noticeably pick one ide over the other. There was a neutral representation of the provided facts. The sources of the information were not neutral though. Most of the references were actual studies or articles that supported certain views on the faculty of language and those views were somewhat noted in the beginning of each statement.

Most viewpoints in this article were underrepresented, I would say. This brings me back to the main point regarding how detailed the article was. The citations I checked randomly worked just fine and I could not find traces of plagiarism without mention of the source. The name list though of the People in Biolinguistics was outdated, where the page did not exist anymore or never existed. This fact could affect the reliability of the article.