User:Fernsays/sandbox

'''

Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything made sense just because it began with an analysis or understanding of theories then it went down to actual specific names and their practices. Nothing appeared to distract me.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position? It appears to be neutral because it is just reporting objectively about different types of theories and the people who support them.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a balance, but there are areas that could have been added in more depth to provide a critical lens that made sense to a larger audience.

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

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? I like that the title date and author are referenced in the links to the citations.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? I am unsure just because I do not know the dates of the specific theories established but right.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It was interesting trying to see people build consensus.

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?