User:Bmdbt/sandbox


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

Everything seemed mostly relevant; however, adding the lifelong companion at the end does seem unnecessary if more information isn’t included with it.


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

It seems neutral and no heavy bias in any direction.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The work she has done with Benson (or individually) seems underrepresented. If more information on their writings or discoveries is available, it should be included.


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

There are only 2 citations and there should and can be more. Both sources can be accessed online, for free.


 * 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?

The sources and facts seem unbiased upon initial inspection of sources.


 * Is any information out of date?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

The information doesn’t seem out of date but is there more recent information found that could be used?


 * 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?

There are no talks happening on this page.


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

Stub-class, low importance


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