Speech Disfluency - Quality Rating: Start - Importance Scale: Low Referenced to reliable references, but not sufficient references. The article remains neutral. The references do work as well. I would critique the published years for the references, outdated. In the "talk" page, there's conversations about what the article refers to when talking about other languages. In my opinion, I believe that by trying to relate it to other languages wasn't as efficient as possibly intended. I would suggest for this article to focus just on the English language, since every language is unique in it's own way and they're usually not parallel for such things like speech disfluency.
Parsing - Quality Rating: Start / C - Importance Scale: High / Top I would critique the fact that the references don't have a link in order to have quick access to it. There are also not enough references throughout the Wikipedia page. The article remains neutral. The "talk" page is primarily focused on the fact that the article is referring to two different types of parsing. I would believe that it would be best to have one page for "Human Language Parsing" and the other focused on computers. (Critique: parsing is dominant to computer parsing) The "talk" page also has editors to feel very strong that the certain terms were switched up.
Evolutionary Linguistics - Quality Rating: C - Importance: Top Not biased Has a good number of references that were used throughout the article I feel that there's a lot more that can be talked about evolutionary linguistics. I honestly thought that this page would've been a lot longer since I was expecting a lot more in detail of areas in this topic. The "talk" page discusses how some words can be defined through links along with not putting so much focus in one minor part of evolutionary linguistics.
In general, have references that are accessible to the reader.