User:TOWNS12282/Evaluate an Article

Fallacy
Fallacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it through the Logic section of Academic disciplines, because I think often in the present day arguments find themselves reduced to various fallacies instead of productive conversation, so this article would be helpful for those who wish to find out more about avoiding employing pointless fallacies in their own discussions. The article gave me impressions of having lots of specific details, as well as sweeping overviews, which is great for casual or intense researchers wishing to learn more.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section has everything outlined as necessary, including an introductory sentence and a description of what the rest of the article entails. It's only potential issue is that it may be a little too detailed, with language that is not really entry-level for someone viewing the article for the first time. As for the contents, there is a full list with links to every important section of the article.

The content all seems to be applicable to the article, but there are certainly sections that have been more fully explored than others. For instance, informal fallacies has many subheadings and explanations, whereas others like cognitive biases are only listed. While I understand not wanting to have too much on one Wikipedia page as to muddle up the important details, it feels weird to pick and choose particular fallacies over others to explain in depth at the expense of others. The content seems to be fairly up to date, with many sources coming from as recently as 2017-2019.

Sources overall seem to be quite well off, with over 40 reputable sources included at the bottom of the page and relevant links included for every major term, approximately one or more per paragraph. However, there are a couple of places where Wikipedia has listed terms or ideas as requiring further citations, such as for 'Faulty Generalization', so that is definitely a place where the article could improve.

No images are included at all, which may make sense given the topic. Thus I can offer no critique.

The tone of the article is well-balanced and quite neutral, with no places where I could locate any form of overt bias or specific leanings of the author towards any conclusion. This doesn't surprise me, as I would guess that an important article like this has been combed through many times for these kinds of issues extensively.

I learned on the talk page that this is actually a Start Article by Wikipedia's guidelines, so could likely use more in depth looks at many of the listed topics in addition to what is already explained. This article has also been studied for projects such as our class' work before, which I also learned on the TalkPage with the listing of that student's username.

Overall, I would say everything that has been worked on for this article is very solid; it could simply use further extensions on the content already present, as well as perhaps a better balancing of which topics are elaborated on and which are linked to elsewhere. Further citations may also need to be explored for other parts of this article. ~