User:76.112.172.89/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Prunus Serotina): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prunus_serotina Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything seems relevant. Nothing was distracting but the amount of different names for the Tree was interesting

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

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope. most of the viewpoints are based on factual info.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations I checked worked and the information presented was relevant to 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? The sources were all neutral. Each fact was appropriate to the article. Much of the information comes from highly regarded sources.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? In my opinion I felt everything was still relevant and I couldn't find anymore info 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? Some of the conversations are about the fruit color which are very important in deciding which tree it is.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They don't reference the bark as burnt potato chips

Syngas

Fixed a citation