User:Jmohara/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

Monster Erotica-

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes. It is all relevant

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The article is very short and there is a lot of information that could be added.

What else could be improved? There is only one sentence about Denver Riggleman's view of Monster Erotica. There should be more information on this instance.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is neutral. It says "humans and monsters" rather than male/female.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The whole article seems to be pretty under representative due to the lack of information.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? There are only four citations. Two of which are from 2013 so it could be considered outdated.

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? They are neutral. Three of them come from News sources while the other one comes from a website ending in .com. All of these could be considered more opinionated and not necessarily scholarly sources.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations on this topic.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as "low importance"

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The topic seems to be lacking a lot of information so it wouldn't be a source you should go to for information.