User:Greenleaf22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feature integration theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am learning about this concept in my cognitive psychology class and was interested to see how this concept is depicted within Wikipedia. It is a model for understanding perception pathways with an emphasis on the importance of attenuation within the visual field for object recognition.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: This article begins with a sentence describing the theory, including a quote which appears to be uncited. It also briefly states that this theory has been important within the field of cognitive psychology. It does not attempt to summarize the contents of the article/provide a preview of the structure.

Content: It seems like all of the necessary content for this topic is present, but dispersed somewhat confusingly. There is a section on 'reading' (title could be better) at the end that is much shorter than the other two sections.

Tone and balance: Aside from the statement at the beginning about this theory being one of the most influential, the tone seems neutral and there are no claims or arguments being made.

Sources and references: There is a quote in the lead section that appears uncited, but otherwise there are good citations for each section of the article.

Organization and writing quality: The article is written in a clear way, but organized in a somewhat convoluted manner. The "stages" section should only include information about the theory and then the supporting evidence/experiments should be better incorporated into the next section. The 'reading' section is very short and lacking detail- it seems like this information could be worked into a different area to eliminate a very short section.

Images and media: There is one image with the stage progression and another that depicts one of the supporting experiments. These images are both useful. The captions are adequate but not particularly descriptive.

Talk page discussion: The talk page makes some interesting points! 1. There is a new theory which paints this one as outdated. 2. One of the images has unclear copyright limitations. 3. One users made similar points as mine about the structure of the article. The article is involved in four wikiprojects so hopefully these changes will be made!

Overall impressions: This article is a great start but is underdeveloped with regard to structure and content organization. I'd recommend clarifying the large-scale structure and then reorganizing each section starting with a full description of theory and then following with supporting evidence.