User:ALeafOnTheWind/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Evaluation of "Old World vultures" Wikipedia page.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The discussion of "close relationships" to New World vultures may only make sense in the lexicon of scientists.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Diclofenac section presents information on rabies, wild dogs, and rats that is not well cited. Statement that India has high rates of rabies is not linked to vulture population decline in any substantiated way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Discussion of vulture population decline in Africa is underrepresented compared to the decline in Asia.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * This link works, but you have to pay to read it. There is no way to tell if it supports the 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?
 * Citations seem to alternate between ones that are numbered, external links, and some random references at the bottom. Some are academic articles while other are news articles with more bias.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Should add more information about vulture populations in areas outside of India and Pakistan.
 * 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 are no active discussions on the Talk page. There was some discussion on wording of "Old World" and "Nubian".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-Class. It is part of WikiProject Birds.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is almost no discussion of other threats to populations. The one mention of use for traditional medicine is weak. Does not discuss taboos related to vultures. Needs improvement.


 * Optional: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes