User:69.119.57.156/sandbox

Article Evaluation
 * As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I'm not sure if the climate data chart is particularly necessary - could be considered distracting.
 * Are all of the "notable people" actually associated with New Brunswick? Doesn't seem likely - unless they are alumni of Rutgers, which should be noted.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I believe the article is generally neutral. However, there are viewpoints that are most defintiely underrepresented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The section on the African American community is especially short. The page needs to go more in depth on the disenfranchised populations of New Brunswick. The Latino community's section is also very short, even though they make up most of New Brunswick's population. More can be added, such as the annual Ciclovia. Also, there is no mention at all about the 1967 Race Riots. The Lenape are only mentioned in one sentence, as being the first inhabitants. There should be more about them.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * All of the links I checked work, and are generally relevant and further support claims 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?
 * Most facts are referenced with appropriate and reliable references, or to other wikipedia pages. My concern is that some parts are too broad, where for example explaining the African American population is linked to African Americans in general - when it should be going into depth on the specific African American population in New Brunswick, or at least Middlesex County, or New Jersey.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most data can be updated - it seems as though most figures are from the 2010 census. As previously mentioned, several things surrounding the African American and Latino community can be added. Also, the only food that is mentioned are the grease trucks (which also can be updated to say the last remaining original one is at the Yard). Can mention the name of the man (whom I forget the name of) who fought to keep his RU Hungry truck by Alexander Library. Speaking of food, there is no data on food insecurity levels in New Brunswick, which are high. There is also no mention of the 20 food pantry's in New Brunswick, or soup kitchens. There is no mention of any slave trade happening on the Raritan landing.
 * 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?
 * There is conversation whether to link the problems downtown to white flight or not. There are debates on whether things happened in New Brunswick, or in surrounding towns. There are also corrections on labeling pictures correctly. There is discussion about affordable housing and the city's homeless population. Interesting someone notes that they believe "quality of life" is a "meaningless buzzword." It is interesting seeing how people discuss on here, with different perspectives (i.e. resident or a DevCo employee) all trying to represent New Brunswick as best they see it/understand it. They emphasize citing/sourcing which is important. Interesting that the name sake of New Brunswick is debated too?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way Wikipedia discusses the topic is strictly based on sources, rather than discussion. This is because Wikipedia emphasizes not injecting your own opinion, but rather to report reliable data to the public.
 * The way Wikipedia discusses the topic is strictly based on sources, rather than discussion. This is because Wikipedia emphasizes not injecting your own opinion, but rather to report reliable data to the public.