User:Alexiscapo1/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Civil Rights Act of 1964
I.              Evaluating Content

a.     Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Mostly everything in the article seems relevant to the Civil Rights Act, however I feel that far too much text was attributed to Howard W. Smith’s opposition of the sex discrimination ban. I feel that more commentary should have been allocated to how well the Civil Rights Act was enforced, and less about how Congress was able to pass it.

b.     Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Most information is not out of date, considering that a lot of it resides on historical facts from the mid-1960’s. However the article is lacking in information post-passing the Act, especially in the public’s response to it.

c.     What else could be improved? The entire “influence” section is extremely lacking in information, primarily because it restated what the goals of the legislation were and how it compares to other passed Acts. Practically no information in that section actually discusses how the legislation was interpreted and received by the public, and how well business and people adhered to its new requirements.

II. Evaluating Tone

a.     Is the article neutral? The article is fairly neutral, most statements are matter-of-fact. Some statements use superlatives like “arguably the best” or “one of the most” without reliable citations, but it doesn’t detract significantly from the tone of the article overall.

b.     Do any claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

c.     Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints on the effectiveness of specific Titles (ex Title IX) of the Civil Rights Act.

III. Evaluating Sources

a.     Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations I checked had working links and were from reputable sources.

b.     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 every source is reliable, as in the “Precedents and History” subtitle, a Buzzfeed article was used to attribute a quote to Jeff Sessions, which isn’t a very reliable source. Under the “influence” subheading, no source is attributed to a direct quote, which is slightly concerning.

IV. Checking the Talk Page

a.     What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most conversations on the talk page involve fact-checking, terminology usage, and the desire to eliminate long sections regarding unnecessary information.

b.     How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of several WikiProjects, including Human Rights, United States History, Law, United States / Government, Public Policy, Women’s History, National Archives, and Civil Rights Movement. The article is rated B-class.

c.     How does the way Wikipedia discusses the topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class? n/a