User:Jqha/sandbox

== Article evaluation == Article Chosen: Hooded Vulture
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is neutral. There is no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the links work and the sources support what is written 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?
 * Yes, facts are referenced with a reliable source, however there could be more citations and sources. Information used in the article comes from the sources cited, and all sources used are neutral.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No information is out of date, although information could be missing.
 * 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?
 * Conversations on the talk page are currently irrelevant to how the topic can be better represented.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as Start-Class. Yes, the article is a part of WikiProject Birds, in the scope of WikiProject Africa, and supported by WikiProject Western Sahara.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses topics much more objectively. There is no personal opinion or thought, just facts.