User:Codystgermain/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Week 2

1.) Nothing distracted me. It was mostly on point.

2.) Everything was neutral for the most part. A few sections sort of over-promoted the benefits and how great the special olympics are without any actual evidence or facts.

3.) Like I said in #2, just some bias in a few places trying to promote the special olympics.

4.) The citations I checked worked well and the source supports the claims.

5.) Some of the references aren't what I would call "scholarly". A few of the citations are from newspaper articles and other websites.

6.) Most of the references are from the last 10 years or so but there are not many from the last couple of years. Some of these could be added.

7.) There are a lot of posts in the Talk page about how it is written as a promotional advertisement rather than an encyclopedia page.

8.) Not sure how to find this out.

9.) We have not talked about this in class.

Week 4

This article has a few things I think can be fixed. The first is that it is written too much like an advertisement and not enough like an encyclopedia post. The second is that the references are generally not from the past few years, and yet there is a lot of information out there about it. The third thing is that I think there could be more information about reasons why the special olympics has been found to be good for the members. Things such as effects of exercise, effects of being part of a team or organization etc. Lastly, there is one article I think should be combined into this article. It is called "Motivations for joining the Special Olympics" and it has a lot of stuff related to what I mentioned above. It provides ways it can help these people. It is not significantly evidenced based, so this is something we can fix, but it does have some important information.