User:Cffc77/sandbox

Evaluating Article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything was relevant in the article, but some information was in the wrong place and that got distracting and made it hard to focus on the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The only information I found to be out of date was the information on their revenue. It is giving a revenue stat from 2014. That was 5 years ago. They could add what they have done in recent years. It seems to only focus on past events.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This article is neutral and not bias for the most part. The part where they talk about the debates they had, they didn't promote one side over the other. Not even at the part about the evolution debate. They were biased at the part where give their perception of science in the UK.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * The only section they are over represented in is the "Perception of science in the UK." They only give there viewpoints without showing the other side.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links work and they do support the article. The main problem is that there are quotes from people that are not sourced or even with quotation marks. Especially in the "Perception of science in the UK."
 * 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 main problem is that there are quotes from people that are not sourced or even with quotation marks. Especially in the "Perception of science in the UK." A lot of the sources come from the reports of the meetings they have, so it is biased in their favor.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There aren't any talks, but the common things that happens is people are adding external links or editing them.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated S. From what I could find, it is not part of any WikiProjects.

Sources and Plagiarism

 * Why did you choose it? What's missing? What do you want to add?
 * It's biggest problem is it's not good at citing quotes, putting quotation marks on the citation, and doesn't have any links that show the quotes. It's missing every key part necessary for citing a valid quote. I want to add more history to the page. If it's truly been around since 1831, there must be more history to the organization than just 3- 4 paragraphs.

Adding to an Article
Edit Summary: Added a sentence to include the reason why the organization was made.


 * The Association was founded in 1831 and modelled on the German Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte. It was founded during post-war reconstruction after the Peninsula war to improve the advancement of science in England. The prime mover (who is regarded as the main founder) was Reverend William Vernon Harcourt, following a suggestion by Sir David Brewster, who was disillusioned with the elitist and conservative attitude of the Royal Society.