User:71.218.74.41/sandbox

Article evaluation
·      Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Overall, it seems that everything presented in the article was relevant to the United States Census Bureau. Though, I think the article could do without the lengthy "ongoing surveys" sections, because most of these aren't even surveys that the U.S. Census Bureau conduct themselves.

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

Most of the article seems to be neutral except for the "Data stewardship" section. This section heavily focuses on the negative political influence on the skewing of the census data collection. For example, it is stated that some of the census data is unclear due to political influences. However, it is never mentioned that unclear results can also arise from content error being from people misunderstanding the questions asked, or people being missed (undercounted) or counted (overcounted) more than once due to other circumstances.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, as stated above the article focuses on political influences on the census data.

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

The first citation link works. However, it does not support what is stated. The link/source does not define the Bureau of the Census. The first link under the "legal mandate" section works, and it also takes the reader to Article 1 of the US Constitution, where it can be seen under section II that the census must be conducted every 10 years.

·       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?

A lot of the claims seem to be backed up other wiki articles. If it were me, I would use more reliable, external sources. However, there were some sources that were from government websites, which tend to reliable.

·      Is any information out of date?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

The article mentions the use of HHC in 2010. Upcoming plans for the transition to electronic data collection and other mechanisms to improve data collection for the 2020 census could be included.

·       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?

Much of the conversations are focused on correcting inaccurate claims and also asking for reliable sources/citations to back up any claim that was made.

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

This article is rated of C-class (low importance). It is a part of 4 WikiProjects.

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

In class, we talked about what the many of the topics listed in the Wiki article. However, our class discussions did not include the extensive list of ongoing surveys listed, organizational structure, computer equipment and other random bits of history included in the article. Also, in class we discussed other sources of data inaccuracies, rather than political influences, how the census questions have changed over time and we also discussed the plans for the 2020 census.