User:Adagonel/sandbox

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

The article features sections related to human migration, but fails to present enough information on the subject. The sections seemed very unorganized, which was distracting.

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

The article feels neutral, however there are many viewpoints missing, and no convincing theoretical or quantitative reasoning behind the theories that are presented.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Many viewpoints are severely underrepresented. The article fails to mention refugees and socio-political reasons behind migration. Many contentious claims are made without any reference to possible counter arguments.

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

Many links work, and the journal articles were easy to find online. However, the sources rarely support the article's claims. An article may show support for one theory, but it will lack empirical evidence. For example, the "New economics of migration" section cites a paper about biological motivations behind motivation, instead of any socio-economic work on family unit decision making or familial economics.

'''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 claims and sections lack empirical support. Many times, sections feature only 1-2 academic journal citations which often present one-sided arguments. This makes the article feel very biased, however it's less intentional and more simply missing much information about human migration. These sources also rarely featured rigorous quantitative or qualitative approaches.

'''Is any information out of date?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

The article features recent publications, but misses many other migration theories, and rarely considers counter arguments to theories it includes. Sociological and policy-related theories are absent, and no historical migration trends are discussed. Many sections are missing convincing explanations and challenging responses. The neoclassical economics subsection makes contentious claims about wages and labor supply without any citation. Yet many scholars have published informative articles about the economics surrounding migration. The article also rarely features any actual statistics. One figure, and two statements making percentage claims, were flagged with "citation needed".

'''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?'''

People are voicing interesting disagreements about the topic and entertain many natural-science migration theories. There is not much of a discussion on the topic from a pedagogical perspective.

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

It is C-Class, meaning it is an important topic receiving inadequate support, leaving an incomplete picture of the subject. It is featured in many "High importance" WikiProjects.

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

In class, we entertain many more ideas regarding migration. The article seems more focused on briefly explaining theories on migration. In class, we go into much more detail behind the theories, and understand them as one of many interwoven explanations.