User:Ajefferies/sandbox

Article Evaluation - 8th United States Colored Infantry

The sections of this article do not tie into each other well, which makes it a bit distracting to read. The information is up to date as far as I know, but it is relatively short and could contain more detail on the subject. It could be written more eloquently, and the flow could be improved. Overall, this article was short, not easy to understand, not well written, and choppy. This article could definitely use some more detail, organization, and a better focus on the topic.

The article appears to be neutral and doesn't contain any strong opinion. No viewpoints are expressed; just vague facts.

The citations and links are well done. They are relevant to the article and contribute to its main point. The citations can help readers understand more fully if they are utilized. The links and citations are reliable for the most part, as they are all for other Wikipedia articles which are supposed to be neutral and contain accurate information.

There aren't any conversations going on behind the scenes, and no comments currently.

This article is not well rated and is not part of any WikiProjects.

Compared to discussions about different topics in class, this article is vague and doesn't contain much useful information or detail. We go into much more depth about our particular subjects in class.

Why did this infantry form and how were they treated by their commanders and other union soldiers?

Article Selection

Freedmen's Town:

This article contains limited information and not many citations. It is not organized very well and could use a better flow and reorganization of the information. More detain would be helpful, as well as more sources. It is part of many WikiProjects, and has lots of conversation and feedback. The article is written neutrally, and doesn't seem to be biased or plagiarized.

Black Flight:

This article doesn't have many citations, but does include a long list of references. The neutrality is not clear, and may need some questionable statements taken out or revised because they suggest bias or opinion. There is suspected original research contained in the text, which needs to be changed out for valid, accurate evidence. The flow of the article is not very good, and some information is irrelevant while a lot of information is not included. The organization and focus needs improvement. Overall, this article needs some rewriting, organization, and reliable citations.