User:138.237.13.150/sandbox

Article Evaluation- Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I believe that everything in this article is relevant to the topic. I think that although the article's mentioning of political reactions to this tragedy may have been distracting from the actual sequence of events which occurred on February 14th, they are worth mentioning, as this event has sparked such a huge nationwide debate over gun control.

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

This article seems to me to be very factual and neutral. However, many of the quotes used from Republican senators do put them in a bad light, and it is difficult to tell if this constitutes bias on the part of the article's author.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I would say that the Democratic viewpoint may be slightly overrepresented in this article, and that the viewpoints of the shooting survivors may be underrepresented, as their reactions have been such a major factor in the aftermath of this particular event.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citations used in this article are working and supportive to the claims made in the article.

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?

For the most part, the sources used for this article are reliable, with the exception of a few, namely one reference to a Vox article, and one from the New York Post.

Is any information out of date?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

I think this article could be updated to include more about the activists coming out of the Parkland community, such as Emma Gonzalez. I would also suggest including more information about the victims and their families, as this article tends to only focus heavy on those who were considered heroes, such as Peter Wang and Scott Beigel.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Many conversations are going on related to this topic, specifically centered around the shooter's personal background and possible affiliation with a white supremacist group, the specific kind of weapon used in the attack, the credibility of the use of Emma Gonzalez's speech in the article, and the use of images in the article.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

I was not able to locate a rating for this article, and it is not a part of any known WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

This article fails to mention any sort of significance in the shooter's maleness, and does not go into depth about his potentially misogynistic views. In class, we have discussed how the western socialization of males can contribute to a male tendency toward radical, violent outbursts like this shooting.