User:AMM1989/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Questions)

*   Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

*   Is any information out of date?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

*   What else could be improved?

*   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

*   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

*   Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support 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

*   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?

The Sociology of Food & Agriculture [1]

*   Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

*   The information on the page is relevant to the article and nothing strays too far from the topic. It all comes back full circle.

*   Is any information out of date?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

*   Some of the sources are from over 10 years ago and need to be looked in to.

*   What else could be improved?

*   The lead needs more information to give a better topic description. Also, I believe that there could be more graphics for the page as well. Every paragraph does not have a source and information is missing.

*   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

*   It seems to be neutral in its writing style but since facts are missing it can be misleading in information.

*   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

*   Under "Sociological Perspectives" more information and perspectives should be given with more sources.

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

*   Sources need to be more direct when they are linked to a specific area in the article. The links took the viewer to a general website that they would have to search through.

*   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

*   Not everything reference has a source and many sources are extremely old.

*   What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

*   Actions around editing and fact checking have occurred. I do not see much talk about this page.

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

*   It is rated as a "Stub-Class" article. It is under the WikiProject Sociology.

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

*   It discusses it from an outsider with facts approach whereas in class we relate things to our experiences.

Drinking Water [2]

*   Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

*   Yes, all the information in the article is related to the subject. There is nothing to distract you from the topic.

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

*   There are sources that could be looked into due to their dates but much of the information still stands as true.

*   What else could be improved?

*   The "Other Animals" and "Regulations" sections could be updated and could use more information.

*   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

*   The article is written in a neutral manner.

*   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

*   There are areas that need to be extended upon which I have listed above.

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

*   The links that I reviewed worked and linked directly to information related to the topic.

*   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

*   Yes, facts are cited with reliable and appropriate sources.

*   What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

*   There is talk about formatting and proper Wikiprotocol in the Talk page.

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

*   It is listed as a "level 3- vital article." It is listed in multiple WikiProjects such as Civil Engineering, Food and drink, Sanitation and Environment and Sustainability.

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

*   It discusses it from an outsider with facts approach whereas in class we relate things to our experiences. It is much more fact driven than we tend to be.

The Columbian Exchange (old article)

*   Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Very little is written about this subject besides a book and some references. It is not distracting and I believe the information is relevant but there is room for a lot of improvement.

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

Many of the sources are out of date and need to be reexamined.

*   What else could be improved?

Topics need to be added there is basically no information on this Wiki page. The first thing that needs to be added is a lead that fits the subject.

*   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

N/A. Not much is written to give a view point.

*   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

N/A.

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

The links work and many are books that I do not have full access to so I am not 100% sure but it seems that these sources support the topic.

*   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

N/A for the overview it all looks fine but many of the source links are from the same one site.

*   What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There was little to no talk going on about this topic.

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

This is under WikieProjects Books and is a stub-level article.

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

We discussed this subject in greater detail than this article.

Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water (new article)

*   Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article is full of facts on the topic. No there is not.

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

Some of the sources may need to be checked for accuracy.

*   What else could be improved?

The article just needs to be brought up to speed with more current information about the topic.

*   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes it is very neutral.

*   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The low income communities need to be represented more throughout the article.

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

Yes the ones I checked did.

*   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

Many of the facts are cited correctly some others may need to be reviewed.

*   What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Not much is being said if at all.

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

It is a part of many WikiProjects. It is rated B-class and low importance.

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

We discussed it in class on a more personal note than this article can.

Additions for my article
In 2016, the Washington Post noted that the problem of lead in Washington, DC's drinking water is decades old. '''Within this new outlet, there are several articles that use incriminating and extreme headlines to grab the readers attention about the DC Water system. Many media outlets have compared the Flint Water Crisis to the decades old water issue in Washington, DC because it pertains to lead as well.'''

After 2016
'''In 2017, the DC Water Quality Report, Washington DC was found to be in compliance with the EPA's standards for lead within drinking water. However, there is no safe level of lead for children to consume. According to the EPA, lead at any level can be harmful. The  EPA has a maximum contamination goal of zero; however, they have not stated how or when they are going to enforce the regulation if it is amended.'''

'''In 2018, DC Water's Drinking Water Quality Report states that there is infrastructure in Washington, DC that contains lead that may impact the drinking water in certain areas. Tips for how to prevent contamination are provided on the report. All the lead pipes in Washington, DC have not been replaced and those that remain may cause problems for those consuming the water. DC Water created an interactive map to show its residents which pipe lines are made out of lead or other dangerous metals. The information was gathered from historical data and inspections.  '''

In 2010:

'''In the DC Water's water quality report stated that there was lead found in some water samples taken during monitoring.  The possible causes linked to the lead contamination was said to be "corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits." The report did not state where the lead was found or who it impacted. A Washington Post article, discussed that there was still work to be done to DC's drinking water systems.'''