User:Vbrownj/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Cognitive revolution
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This article is relevant to our class material.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, it doesn't
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, it does. The information about publications in the field and the Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies and the Center for Human Information Processing at the University of California San Diego does not exist anywhere else in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is not too long, but the second two paragraphs don't seem like good information to have in the Lead. They might go better somewhere else.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- I think so. I don't know enough about the subject to know if there is more information that should be there. It's describing a historical event, so there probably shouldn't be tons of new information that could go on there.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I don't see any content that doesn't belong. It does seem to be missing some kind of explanation of how the Cognitive Revolution impacted various fields.

Is the article neutral?
- It looks pretty neutral. More than one side is represented.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Not really. There is one sentence that seems to be saying that theories that incorporate mental states more reliably produce outcomes, which could be a little biased.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- There is more about criticism of the Cognitive Revolution than about why people believe it was a positive thing.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Not all of them.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- More sources could probably be added. There are only five, and there must be more information on this topic than that.
Are the sources current?
- Not really, the most recent is 2007. I think that makes sense, though, because this is an article about a historical event. A couple of the sources are Chomsky's and Skinner's writing, so it makes that they would not be as current.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It's not impossible to read, but it could be improved.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Yes
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It needs some more sections. The majority of the article is responses and criticism.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- A concern about an unsupported claim, concern about having too much criticism/support for behaviorism, some facts that were incorrect were pointed out, and someone mentioned that something about neuroimaging should be added
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It's in WikiProject Cognitive Science and rated Start-Class and High-Importance. It's also in Wikiproject Psychology and Wikiproject Philosophy, where it's rated Start-class.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- There is much more about the criticism of the Cognitive Revolution, and we did not talk about the question of whether it was actually a revolution, which is mentioned in the article.

What is the article's overall status?
- It has some information to start with, but it needs some work.
What are the article's strengths?
- It is not biased, even though one view is represented more than others (the view is described neutrally), and most things are cited.
How can the article be improved?
- It needs to have information added about the impact of the Cognitive Revolution, reasons it was seen positively by many people, and more historical background. It also needs some minor editing for grammar and clarity.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- It's pretty underdeveloped.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~