User:Eas50930/sandbox

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 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? What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?Eas50930 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC) - I have chosen to review the article on my group's chosen topic: David Salle -All information seemed relevant to him and his works -Lots of missing information, and the article was extremely short. It barely talks about his works, and does not talk about his ideas behind his works. It does not talk about his personal life at all, except where he currently lives. The article, as a whole, mostly talked about the events and galleries where his work has been shown. However, the sources are quite recent and up-to-date. -Overall, the article does a good job of remaining neutral, except in a few places where I feel as though the author describes his works as "prolific" and "appears to be random," which I find to be both unprofessional and showing bias and opinion. -Yes, his works and the concepts behind them are barely touched on, which should be the main focus. Instead, the article goes into great detail about where his works have been shown. The article also spends a good chunk of text talking about his foray into costume design, which is not nearly as    important in the overall scheme of his career. -In short, the references used are terrible. The first one I clicked on is an article by the New York Times. None of the sources are scholarly, much less peer-reviewed. Because of this, the sources are not neutral either. These biases are not noted in the article at all. In fact, the New York Times article is not even about David Salle. Every source is inappropriate and akin to a Jr. High student's first research essay. They should all be    scrapped. -Citations are missing in multiple spots in the article. -The conversations on the article include some revisions to point of view and to citations. The article is part of two WikiProjects: Biography and United States. The article is rated as both start-class and low-importance.Eas50930 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)