User:Jjthakid23/sandbox

Article evaluation •Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?-Yes everything in the article was referring to everything that makes since with reading the title, but I was not distracted by anything through the reading.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?-No this article is in date and I feel nothing should be added.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •What else could be improved?-There really isn't anything to improve because this article is already very welled structured.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased-I would say this article is very much because how it adds in time stamps for when and where also it keeps the same throughout.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-I would say the 19th century section is very well overrepresented for how they already mention some of the same points in the intro of the article.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?-Yes the citations work and they give a great meaning back to the main topic.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •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?-Yes I would say that they are reliable because they all come from Wikipedia just as the main article is. Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?-Well they are basically just speaking on summaries of it section and how they are being used and or categorized.Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) •How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?-This article was listed a level-5 vital article and rated as a start class article, also it is a a part of the wikiproject. Jjthakid23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Moron%20(psychology)&item_type=topic

•Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Are some areas under- or over-developed?-Yes this article provides reasonable content that clearly relates to the article and has a good foundation to the topic.Jjthakid23 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC) •Is it written neutrally?-Yes this article is written very neutrally and isn't bias in any way towards on side of the topic.Jjthakid23 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC) •Does each claim have a citation?-Yes the have great citation with great foundation towards the main topic of the article.Jjthakid23 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Moron%20(psychology)&item_type=topic -This source gives in the facts about what exactly moron is throughout Psychology and how it was used during the American eugenics movement. This source also provides the orgin where the word comes from and you should it in your life.

Jjthakid23 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work on the sigs, Jordan! One should suffice, however. Dr AB Swan (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)