User:Elenalicious/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Evaluating content

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

The content discussed in the article are relevant to the article topic. The structure is well organised though the vote total portion could be more summarized. Furthermore, the mention of Martin Luther King’s encounter with Malcolm X is redundant.

·      '''Is any information out of date?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

The topic is heavily focused on historical event hence I believe it is acceptable to include information that occurred in the past. Under the subsequent court ruling section, the latest event mentioned is in 2017, which is relatively new as it is within three years.

·      What else could be improved?

For the women’s rights section, the focus could be more on the rationale and origin rather than Smith.

Evaluating tone

·      '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article is neutral as it presents both sides of the arguments for and against Civil Rights Act.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoint of the Proposition of Civil Rights Acts is overrepresented compared to the opposition. The page focus on the victory of the proposition.

Evaluating sources

·      '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

One of the links: Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 did not work, some of the links include information that require further verification. Yes, the sources support the claims as there are a good number of citations and no gaps in sourcing.

·      '''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?'''

Source is not cited for the vote totals section, however, majority of the content is backed with links to other wikipages, government websites and research papers. They are neutral source with absence of warning banners, fragmented lead section or value statements.

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

·      What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The conversation mainly focus on fact checking, modification of links and addition of content

·      '''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

Yes, the article is part of B-class WikiProjects.

·      How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Focus on factual presentation of information. Details are concrete and summarised.