User:Djb375/sandbox

Today I am going to critique an article on Central Park in New York

Article Critique (2/28)

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Many facts are, but the article is very long with a lot of facts so many facts do not have references.

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

Yes, the article seemed well-written.

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

The article is neutral and written on a non-controversial topic. I think it would be difficult for it to be overtly biased but it might be somewhat biased towards the Central Park Conservancy. Some of the "Issues" section could be re-written in a more neutral voice.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

A lot of the information comes from news articles that seem fairly neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not that I have noticed.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

Most do work. I fixed one that didn't work. I did not notice any close paraphrasing or plagiarism but the article is very long.

Is any information out of date?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

It looks largely up to date. I do not notice anything missing.