User:Sarmsco/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neurolinguistics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because it looked interesting to me, it is a branch of linguistics, and it was a "good" article. I wanted to evaluate one that was considered "good," so I know what one looks like when I begin to edit my stub. This way, I will know what to work toward and what types of things are missing/what I need to add.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section is concise, presents a brief overview of the whole topic, gives a basic definition/description of neurolinguistics, links to other pages for more information, cites a source, and gives a table of contents, showing the content breakdown for the rest of the article.

Content: The information is up-to-date. The last edit occurred on September 11, 2021. I did not read any information that was irrelevant to the topic. I did not see any content that looked out of place, and I do not know enough about neurolinguistics to tell if there were any major content gaps. From what I read, I think all the major information was there. Nothing seemed to be missing.

Tone and Balance: The article was neutral throughout, not taking any sides or having a controversial tone. I did not read any instances of persuasion or bias within the article.

Sources and References: All facts are backed up by up-to-date, relevant sources. There are many authors and journals listed in the notes and references section, so there is a wide variety of perspectives added into the reading. I did not see any "random" sources cited. The links I clicked on worked.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing was clear, concise, and readable. The text was well organized, with the article being divided into subcategories and relevant information included under each subheading. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors during my read through.

Images and Media: There are multiple images included in this article, all of which, I think, add meaning to the article and help me understand the content. They are all relevant and coincide with the sections to which they were added. They are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion: There seemed to be a semi-heated discussion over the inclusion of NLP in the article back in 2006. There are also some edits, added references, and discussions about a variety of topics related to neurolinguistics. There were some comments explaining the choice in images, as well, and the history of the article.

Overall Impressions: The article is classified as "good." It is very well developed, links to other pages, and includes a hefty load of resources and notes. I do not know what else could be added, as I do not know about neurolinguistics.