User:Gaby b1012/sandbox

Paragraph: Set the style of your text. For example, make a header or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes. A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The “More” options allows you to underline (U), cross-out text ( S ), add code snippets ( { } ), change language keyboards (Aあ), and clear all formatting ( ⃠ ).

Links: Highlight text and push this button to make it a link. The Visual Editor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an “external links” section, for example) click on the “External link” tab.

Cite: The citation tool in the Visual Editor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the Visual Editor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Once you've added a source, you can click the “re-use” tab to cite it again.


 * Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

Insert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.

ÀΩ: This tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Evaluation

For the most part, everything in the article seems relevant to the article. It does an adequate job of providing a wide range of information of the various perspectives involved in the topic. However, I feel as if the section titled “Lobbying Efforts” is lacking. This section is extremely short, including only two sentences on the efforts of lobbyists on the Act. Thus, in its current state, I’m not sure that this section needs its own specific heading. I think it could either be tied into the previous section or additional information could be added to make the section more substantial. In addition, I felt like the article contained some extraneous information, specifically in the section outlining the titles of the Act. For example, the sections on Title VI and VII are substantially longer than the other sections. I felt as if the information provided in these sections went beyond the scope of the overall article and ultimately distracted from the title-by-title breakdown of the Act’s contents. For the most part, I think the information was up to date. However, I think the article could have provided a bit more information on the recent implications of the Act on transgender discrimination.

Overall, I feel as if the article is fairly neutral. It does a good job of presenting the information in an extremely objective way. In addition, it gives insight into why some people opposed the Act and why others supported its passage. It seems as if the viewpoints provided are represented to the appropriate extent. In total, the article gives an unbiased explanation of the history, contents, and implications of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This article is extremely well cited. It includes over 70 notes, 20 references, and every piece of information provided in the article seems to be backed by a citation. For the most part, the sources used are credible. For example, the article cites the National Archives and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, the article also includes broken links and some references to some not-so-credible sources such as BuzzFeed News. For the most part, the sources used are unbiased and sufficiently support the information delineated in the article.

Overall, the talk page of this article hasn’t been extremely active recently. Two of the most recent edits were a bot modifying external links. The most recent discussion involves a question regarding the scope of the Act and its relation to the 19th amendment. Past comments have questioned the certain sources cited or wording choice used by different editors. The article is rated B-class and is part of several projects, including Human rights, Civil rights, and Law. It seems that commenters in the Talk page are generally concerned with making sure that even the smallest facts are partial and true.