User:Yamjimenez/Evaluate an Article

= Evaluating =


 * Psycholinguistics
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes
 * Is there anything that distracted you? The "reading" part distracted me a little because it took me a bit to understand what this section was for and what it was talking about.
 * Is any information out of date? There's a couple sources that were from the 1970's, and knowing there's way more technology and resources now, we should be able to get better results from modern studies.
 * Is anything missing that could be added? To this article, it'd be helpful to add a couple examples of real people who made an impact as linguists or as victims of brain damage etc.
 * What else could be improved? A picture should be added that can connect us to psycholinguistics


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the information gives different viewpoints and presents different types of research.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes.
 * --Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, these sources focus mostly on speech and language.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Yes, I found that these articles were pulled from many databases, they seem to be journals written by experts. The information does not seem to be biased, it gives different viewpoints from different experts. Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversations I found were mostly compliments on the page and what could be added for extra information on the subject.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? B-Top, and it's part of a couple wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It's a great example of what a Wikipedia page looks like.