User:66.181.226.163/sandbox

= Article evaluation =

Article Title: Invasive Species in the United State

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Overall the article was relevant to the article topic. It is a good and concise overview of invasive species in the U.S as it includes government policies, education and outreach, as well as a breakdown of invasive species by area.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is pretty objective and neutral. It is more informative than opinionated in the way that it mostly shares facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It seems like the article focuses more on the social and economical consequences of invasive species rather than on the ecological side effects.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, the links to the citations work properly. Also, the information correlates adecuately to the original source.
 * 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? There is an average of one citation for every couple sentences. The sources used seem to be government-funded web pages such as The U.S. Forest Service. Also, there is a few sources from common journals such as The Washington Post.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 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?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?