User:Momovuwi/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: (link)Psycholinguistics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article since it is Linguistics and sounds interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic and a brief description of the article's major sections. Th Lead is not overly detailed but rather concise and does include some information that is not present in the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The articles content is relevant to the topic and up to date. The article addresses somewhat topics related to hisorically underrepresentated population and topic.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone and balance is neutral and does neither attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another nor does it have any any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

A majority of the articles seemed backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and they reflect the available and current literature on the topic. Sources seem credible from academia and peer reviewed. Links seem to work.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well organized and well written and does not seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article did not include any images or media that enhanced understanding of the topic.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversations were about updating and adding new material and context. Even questions about the topic specifically. It is part of WikiProjects Psychology, rated B-class, WikiProjects Neuroscience/Linguistics with a C-class rating. It is part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the status is good on the article. It has major scientific material by credible sources. What can be approved is the background or history topic of the discipline. As is being disucessed in the Talk section.


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * 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:Talk:Psycholinguistics