User:N242h289/Evaluate an Article

In the applied linguistics wiki article everything seemed relevant to the article topic, but other than mentioned breifly that the discipline has broadened since the 1990s, it didn't really go into how it has broadened. The article seems neutral, but is mostly a list of associations and only offers a brief explanation of the topic. The links to the subfields were helpful, but it is just a long stream of links, no brief explanations of the subfields on the main page. The links for the sources that are online do work and support what the article says, and seem like neutral sources to someone unfamiliar with the field. A few really broad statements in the lead section are uncited, but overall the article is well cited. The talk page discusses how parts of the article are to general and disorganized. It also discusses how some of the same information appears under two different tabs. There was another discussion about should a certain source be used. The talk page is a much more informal style of communication compared to the style used in the training course.