User:Komalsharma13/sandbox

Notes: Banner on top that says “This article has multiple issues”. This already is a red flag that this article needs some help and revision. It has found problems with the layout guidelines and needs additional citations for verification. Not every face is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. In fact, there are one huge paragraph with only a single reference. I think that everything in the article was relevant to the topic. The only thing that “distracted” me was the weird formatting of the document because there were 2 huge paragraphs and it would help if there was proper spacing or if those paragraphs were broken down a bit more to make the document more readable. For the most part, the article seems neutral. The reference links were accurate and worked. The article has been rated as B-Class. Overall, I think it is a good, non-bias article, just in need of some formatting revision. COPIED FROM TEXTBOOK. If edit this article, will have to start from scratch.
 * 1) Sentence Processing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_processing

2.  Speech disfluency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_disfluency

Banner at top says that the article “needs additional citations for verification.” It is a relatively small wikipedia page and thus shows us that it needs much more information. Not every fact referenced has an appropriate reference. Everything in the article is on topic. There is a lack of in-depth information however. They talk only about the “huh” syllable, when there are so many other disfluency syllables they need to address such as umm, uh, so, well, like. They mention it in the introduction but fail to talk about it more. The links in the reference section work. There indeed is a lot of information that can be added.

3. Prediction in language comprehension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_in_language_comprehension

This article does not have a banner on the top of it warning us about any possible improvements or odd activity going on which is a good sign. After reading through the page, this seems to be a strong wikipedia article-it stays on topic and has a lot of references and is neutral. There might be more information that could be added to the article, but for the most part is seems to be a complete and reliable page of information.

4. Reading Comprehension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Banner at the top says “ The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.” This indicates that it is not necessarily a neutral or non-bias page. Since it only focuses on reading comprehension issues in one part of the world, it does not provide a thorough and wholesome gathering of information. There is a lot of information that should be added-most importantly information covering reading comprehension in other parts of the world. The page does have a good amount of references and the links are working.

5. Psycholinguistics: Psycholinguistics

This page does not have a warning banner on top of it. Plenty of references and a lot of information. Does not seem to be biased and it neutral. This article seems to be wholesome and including a lot of information. I do not think this article needs more information added or any improvements, unless new research/information is found.

6. Parsing: Parsing

This article has a LOT of good information and really goes in depth of the subject. However, there are only 6 references total for the entire page. This is not enough for such an in-depth page of information and there needs to be more sources and references added to the page to make it more valid for the reader to be sure that this information is coming from somewhere real/trustworthy. Other than adding references, I believe this is a strong page.

7. Language Production: Language production

There are ONLY 2 REFERENCES for this page. This is a huge red flad and there needs to be more references to prove the validity of the information. The page is relatively brief and I definetly think more information could be added to make it a more wholesome page. It seems like they just copied and pasted information from other wikipedia articles.

8. Evolutionary Linguistics: Evolutionary linguistics

This is a great page because it has a LOT of references and a huge list of "further reading" options for people interested in learning more about the topic. The page is relatively brief and I believe more information could be added to it, especially in the History part of it since it is an article on "evolution" of linguistics so I'd expect the leader would really want to know how the topic got started and has evolved over the years and influenced the field of linguistics.. It is non-biased and neutral in my opinion.