User:Amarburger18/sandbox

'''Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Are some areas under- or over-developed?''' The content is relevant to the topic. However, it is very underdeveloped and could use some more explaining and more facts.

Is it written neutrally? It is written neutrally. The information is to the point on what an auditory illusion is and is not biased.

'''Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?''' One of the two claims do. The citation, when I looked into it, seemed very reliable. Amarburger18 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential Sources https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/auditory-illusion

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134655.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13355-sound-effects-five-great-auditory-illusions/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/auditory-illusions-10-04-25/ Amarburger18 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Cole and I added a citation and also added the web link to the external links section.Amarburger18 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)