User:BraeFlem/sandbox

Google Scholar
The article seems to contain a lot of good information all relevant to the topic: Google Scholar. In this article I didn't seem to find anything to be distracting. The article is surprisingly neutral. When parts of the article make bold claims such as "Google Scholar is vulnerable to spam. " In my readings nothing particularly biased stood out to me, and all bold claims were supported with citation. The article heavily explored many aspects of Google Scholar including both the pros and cons of the search engine. The article is composed of 44 different cites, the ones that I looked into were rather reliable. I wonder though if citing what google scholar has to say about itself is reliable or bias? I suppose for these purposes I would consider this reliable, since Google Scholar would know the most and best information about its product. After visiting the talk page I was surprised by all of the discussion going on. One person commented "Not as good as described in this article." They then went on to provide a better article, to which someone else responded to "I found that your article was somewhat informative. However, it seemed to be highly biased against Google Scholar by blasting it at every opportunity." Interestingly enough the article is rated Start-class and is a part of Wiki Projects. This surprised me because I thought it was rather informative, however I am unaware of how long ago these ratings were completed.

Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night
Before finally settling upon the Starry Night you see in museums, Vincent pained two other paintings. However these two paintings failed to capture the image wanted by Van Gogh, and it was the creation of Starry Night that satisfied what he sought to portray.