User:NaviRome/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the cognition article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evauluate as the course I am doing this for is Human Cognition, so I thought it was best to evaluate the cogniton article. I believe having accurate and acessible information on cognition is important as it would help people learn about their own thouught processes and how they percieve the world around them. My preliminary impression was that the article was well organized with several references and pictures when appropriate.

Evaluate the article
The lead section as okay, it was able to talk about the definition of cognition and the fields in which it is studied in but that's about it. There wasn't an introductory sentence and included a lot of links towards other articles in the first few sentences alone. There isn't any talk about marginalized groups but it has a pretty good summary of the early theorists and the ways to improve cognition. A good section to add would be what would damge or hinder cognition as well. The article seems to be neureal as it mostly just presents well known facts about theorists and their theories.

Upon checking a few of the links, the cititions seem to work and support the claims in the article. The citations are aslo properly cited, with often more than one citation for a claim when needed. The sources seem to be reliable references as they are from reliable textbooks, or peer reviewed, and appear to be unbiased. They also come from a variety of different authors with appropriate certifications.

Looking at the talk page, it is onkly rated a C-Class rating as it includes vital information but much more could be added to it. It also shows that it is a educational assignment, meaning there are other students working on it. When checking out the talk page, it seems as if edits to this page have not been made in years as some of them date back to 2009 and a few from 2020. There was great criticism and suggesttions from editors and students alike. The editors were very thorough in their explanations in the talk, when tallking about their corrections or suggestions. So while this article has some good information, it is far from complete.