User:Jpeatross05/sandbox

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? -Everything is relevant to the topic of the Los Angeles pneumonic plague.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -The article is neutral, however there weren't many if any claims to go off of.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -There are some viewpoints that are very underrepresented such as the topic of "Transmission" and introduction of the article. Both sections were reduced to about 3-4 sentences whereas the section "Epidemiology" was about 3 paragraphs. The author does not go in-depth about the actual disease itself. Furthermore, I would like to see information on possible strains, symptoms from the strains, etc. The Epidemiology section mainly focuses about 4 of the initial people infected by the disease. While this information is important as 1 of those people were patient zero, finding and including information about the other 26 patients such as age, gender, race, and social status would be beneficial to this section. Overall, this article vastly underrepresents a majority of the information surrounding the 1924 Los Angeles pneumonic plague.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 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? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? 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? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?