User:JohnFarrell5/sandbox2

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything in the article related to the term, and the article did a great job of explaining all the different types of Sovereignty. Including the history of it, for example the medieval version of Sovereignty. The only thing that distracted me was under the heading " Sovereignty and independence" there was little in terms of verification so it made me wonder if the information there was considered legitimate.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article is almost completely neutral. It should also be noted that the page states that the more modern concept of "State Sovereignty" is the same as the general term of "Sovereignty". For the most part, the page is only dealing with definitions of the term Sovereignty, and it would be very challenging to bias a particular position on the term.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
Again, where this page is dealing with definitions it would be hard to over-represent a viewpoint. I do believe the summary of the term at the top of the page is underrepresented, because of the fact that it is such a small line of text and I feel that much could be added to it to give readers a clearer idea of what Sovereignty really is.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
All of the citations seem to be in working order. I did not have an issue opening any of the cites I did. As for the sources themselves, they are all very credible because they are academic journals with many resources of their own and very lengthy. The information inside these resources is considered legitimate.

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?
As stated above, I believe all the references come from extremely reliable references since they are all academic journals. These journals are all relatively neutral since they are dealing with the term itself. Even journals with titles such as "Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities" sound like they would be biased to a certain side of an argument, but upon reading, it is not.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Some of the sources come from early dates, for example a main source comes from the year 1996. Nevertheless it does not appear to be dated upon reading. As for things that could be added, I mentioned above that the summary section on the top of the page is almost too brief. This could definitely be expanded on.

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?
There are very few conversations going on in the talk sections of this article. However, on the conversations that are going on, most of the conversations are based on the accuracy of examples when State Sovereignty is used. For example a reader believes that that the ICRC is represented as being a sovereign power, but in reality it is not. Its members only employ some of the benefits of sovereignty. I am not well informed on the ICRC so I can not say if this reader is right or wrong.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
The article is part of three WikiProjects... WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject International Relations/Law, and WikiProject Politics. On all three projects it is rated "Start-Class", meaning that the article is still developing. It has many usable parts to the article but it is still weak in many areas, meaning that readers will read the article and end up wanting more information. It is also rated "High Importance" on WikiProject Philosophy, and "Top Importance" on the other two WikiProjects. This means that this article is fundamental to the topic.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
For the most part, we have been talking in class about what Sovereignty is. How it has to be recognized internally and externally to be considered legitimate. This article talks about such things as well, but it also dives much deeper than our discussions in class by giving definitions of what Sovereignty was in certain time periods. It also gives different approaches on how Sovereignty can be used, and also the many ways that someone can acquisition Sovereignty.