User:Uncombed8701/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Spoken language - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the concept of language and how random sounds have meaning to us is fascinating.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is an excellent example of what a lead section should be looking lt's only a few sentences that accurately summarizes the rest of the article. icle.

The article's content is relevant to the topic and goes over the lead section and develops the points it made in it as well as discussing new ones. The content of the article is up-to-date, and there is no content that does not belong, although the article seems a little shorter than it could be. The article does not deal with any equity gaps in Wikipedia.

All the sources are backed up by a reliable source of information, with much of them being within the last 20 years. The links do work, and the papers are written by accredited authors in their respective fields.

The article is written with a neutral opinion and there are no claims biased towards any one opinion. The article is simple a factual summary of research conducted on spoken language, what it is, how it works, and the relation between written and spoken languages.

The article is well-organized and written. It is concise and easy to read: no super long sentences which make it difficult to read. All the major talking points are broken down into sections which make sense to the reader in the index.

The article contains no images or graphics to boost it.

The talk page shows a group of students from a class expressing their interest in editing the page for their class project. One of the main maintainers of the article discussed about how there was nothing really to change for the article, but he was fine with them wanting to try anyway. The talk page is stale since 2012, and I don't think any new change will be happening in the near future. It is also a part of the following Wiki Projects: Language, Linguistics, and Deaf.

My overall impressions are that this article is a high-quality article, although the topic is more like a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article of interest. Its strengths would include its concise and easy to understand sentences and straight to the point language. The biggest weakness would be the lack of images and/or graphics that would help boost the written word in the article.