Slmaqbool

Parsing

•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

    No. There are very few citations in the article despite there being a fair bit of writing on the subject. 

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

    This article is heavily focused on parsing as related to computer programming. The linguistic aspect of parsing is largely neglected and should be expanded upon within the article. 

•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

    The article is biased toward the importance of parsing in the context of computer programming. 

•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

    Most of the sources are not linked so I cannot really check the quality of these sources.

The link that was

•Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

    The computer programming aspect of parsing is heavily over represented in the article.

•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

    Most of the sources are not linked or have broken link. 

•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

    I don’t know enough about computer programming to know if that information is out of date, but there is very little info on linguistics related.

•Check the "talk" page of the article, what kinds of conversations is the Wikipedia community having about how to represent these issues?

    There are lots of comments on adding info about linguistics and also suggested improvements on their sources and links.

How is the article rated?

    For linguistics, its rated a C and for computer related topics, it is Start class. 

Evolutionary Linguistics •Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

    The information in the article seems to be properly cited to the appropriate sources. For the most part, the sources seem to be scientific papers and other academic materials. 

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

    The section "Recent Developments" seems in particular need of reworking.The section seems less about ongoing research and discoveries and more about floating theories with no real factual information surrounding where these theories come from or their place and significance within the field. 
    

•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

    I think the article is fairly neutral. It stresses the fact that the field is still small and so there are many aspects of its research that is not yet conclusive.

•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

    Many of the sources are scientific papers and come from reputable academic sources. There is no noted bias. 
    

•Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

    If there are popular viewpoints or a general consensus on the topic of evolutionary linguistics, it has not been shared in the article, but otherwise I think there is just an overall lack of information on the topics covered and the article should surely be expanded with more details.

•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

    The links work, however there are entire paragraphs with no citing which leads me to believe that there is either plagiarism or some close paraphrasing going on that is also not attributed to the original work.

•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

    Because the "recent developments" section is so weak, I think that there is probably more relevant and current information that could be added to the piece.

•Check the "talk" page of the article, what kinds of conversations is the Wikipedia community having about how to represent these issues?

    The talk section highlights a lot of issues with the sources. Either they are not directly tied into the article itself and just kind of point readers toward semi-related material, or the content within the actual sources are not really relevant to the wiki page. 

•How is the article rated?

    This article is rated a C and is labeled as top-importance in the Linguistics category. 

Speech Disfluency •Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

    There are several instances of there being facts that are not properly cited. Other users have inserted notes for a need of citations.

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

    Despite there being so little information in the article, it still manages to sort of forget that its supposed to be about  speech disfluency. It kind of veers on into small tangents. 

•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

    I would say the article only really includes one  viewpoint on the issue of speech disfluency. Im sure there are many theories as to what causes it, how they affect language and speech, and other aspects of the topic, but there is no real mention of that. Its mostly justa list of common disfluencies.

•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

    Of the 5 sources, four are from papers or jounals and one is from the New York times. Due to newspapers being notorious for misrepresenting scientific findings in their articles, any information that comes from them should be further researched. 

•Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

    I feel like any kind of scientific information is underrepresented here.

•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

    The resource links all work however there are sections that were obviously derived from a source but were not cited.

•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

    The information seems to be up to date.

•Check the "talk" page of the article, what kinds of conversations is the Wikipedia community having about how to represent these issues?

    The majority of users on the talk page are talking about the language dependence section and errors or additions that should be made. Also, a few critiqued the sources and made revisions. 

•How is the article rated?

    It is a start class article of low importance in the linguistics category.