User:JarodKimble/sandbox

= Article Evaluation = Terrorism: Benghazi Attack


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * everything is relevant, nothing distracted me.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * newly added information and dates are dated to 2018 - things are up to date
 * What else could be improved?
 * As a terror attack, this article is very informative as it is a impactful event on society. Improvements could be made but it would be minimal.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * the article seems to be neutral in the fact of stating the factual evidence and events that took place in Libya of 2012. There is a small sense of "leaning" toward an american approach or audience due to the fact that we were the victims of this. One might add the position/feelings/attitudes of the Libya people as to why they performed this attack
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * article does a good job of getting the position that there is no definitive evidence that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group has performed this attack. It is important to get that western bias or idea of thinking out of the way.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * links to important citations and other pages work and support the claims
 * 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?
 * information comes from the State Department and other U.S. governmental agencies and is deemed reliable and appropriate due to the fact that the U.S. was the victim of this terrorist attack


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * many people are claiming this article is very one sided in defense of the victims and fails to represent the actions of president obamas in the hours afterwards
 * They find it sad that the article focused more on the actual attack by the Libyans, rather then the fact the U.S. had complete capabilities to help these americans that suffered this day
 * I see more and more claiming it is a horrible article due to the biased and one sided story
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * this was rated as a history good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time
 * it is apart of WikiProject Africa and Libya with a rated C-Class and mid importance as well as WikiProject Terrorism
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * this article does not directly go into the reasons sociologically in a criminology approach as to why the Libyans committed this crime of terror against american citizens