User:Brigpaulson15/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aewlarsen?action=edit

Follow Their Lead

 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Yes, it gives a general definition of the topic, and then a more specific definition.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Yes, I think it is important that it tells the history of the topic, that way you get an idea about what perspectives and people were prominent during a specific time. After reading the lead section again, it could mention something about the history of the topic within the first few paragraphs.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * I think the lead is a very basic start to the article. It is basically just a definition of the article title and the different topics/ideas it relates too.

A Clear Structure

 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * The sections are very well organized, because they are already presented chronologically.

A Balancing Act

 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * I think every section is important. It first gives the historical perspective, and then how it applies in the modern world.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * I believe that it is very thorough with the information it gives. All of the main viewpoints are included.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No

Neutral Content

 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No, the article is mainly just facts.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * No
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * No, but there is a section that mentions how some high schools and colleges are offering more psychology courses, but there is not a reference to a citation.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * No,

Reliable Resources

 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Yes, most are connected to a reliable source.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Yes, There are a few statements that are connected to one source.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * As I said before, there was a paragraph in the Counseling section that didn't have a reference.

Follow Their Lead

 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * It is honestly kind of confusing to me. I think it needs to be more simplified.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * I think it reflects the important information first.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * I think it is redundant that there is a lead section where the author gives the definition, and then has another section with the definition again.

A Clear Structure

 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * The sections are not organized well. The section after the lead (Definition section) really does not have a point considering that the definition is written in the lead section.

A Balancing Act

 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * The article is long and has a lot of information, but with few sources. Parts of the article are not cited, so it could be the author stating information without knowledge about the topic.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * There are a lot of references in the further reading section, however, it seems like they are unbalanced and there are some that are unnecessary.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No

Neutral Content

 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y..
 * Yes, there are a few throughout the article/.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * No
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * No, it is just different aspects of the topic.

Reliable Resources

 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Most are connected to reliable sources.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Yes, there are only eight sources throughout the article, so I think that it is lacking.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * There are many statements that don't have references. There is a lot of information on this article that is from one point of view.

Follow Their Lead

 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Yes, it gives a basic understanding of the different ways virtual reality is used.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Yes, the lead basically sums up the whole article.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * No

A Clear Structure

 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Yes, it is organized well.

A Balancing Act

 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * I think every section is a good length, with no repeated information.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * I think the main viewpoints that the article covers gives the reader a clear understanding of the many forms and uses of virtual reality.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No

Neutral Content

 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * Yes, there is a statement in the "Forms and Methods" section that isn't cited.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * No
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * No, just specific uses of virtual reality, as well as the safety and concerns.

Reliable Resources

 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Most of the sources are from blogs or self-published authors.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * No, almost every statement is cited by a different source.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * Yes, there are a few statements throughout the article that need citations still.