User:Jungermane/sandbox

There's nothing that is completely off topic; however there is a lot of information missing. Personally, I find these "[when?]" and "[by whom?]" very distracting and useless. I think the author could have easily included the answer to these questions in the text instead of making it in a little box. Also when we click on the box it doesn't bring us to another page where the answer could be found. These are just questions that the reader will probably have and the writer is pointing them out but there is no answer.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

This article is neutral because of the information given, meaning there are a lot of definitions of terms and facts from other sources like the World Bank and the United Nations. It also includes includes a lot of lists, like the top ten migration countries and the top ten remittance recipients, and many more.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position?

I didn't particularly feel like this article is biased but maybe like the author knew more about certain concept and theories than others. This means he talked or went more in depth in some of theories but it wasn't biased in the sense that he didn't take any positions. I think that the views presented are more or less equal. However there were vague explanation of complicated theories which lead to, in my opinion, under-representation of most of the views. The author could have gone more in depth for most, if not all, of these views and should have cited more authors who actually worked and studied these views.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I do feel like the "Osmosis: the Unifying Theory of Human Migration" was more represented than the others. Partially because this theory had references and citations that we could follow which were missing in the other theories.

I did however like the "historical theories" because although these aren't accurate anymore, people used to believe them at some point. I would've liked to know more about these because again they were a bit superficial but I like the idea of putting them there. Also the author could have stated a few citations for these historical theories. This would allow us to know where this is coming from and if we want to read more we could look up their work. Some sources are indeed trustworthy like the World Bank or the United Nations papers that are cited. However there are many references to links and websites that are not trustworthy and some references to websites that don't exist. For the most part the citations and references do not support the claim because there aren't enough of real, reliable and trustworthy ones.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The facts are not well referenced. Although some have good and reliable references, there are many who have references that lead to nothing. Also many facts are simply not references at all. At one point the author tried to cite the United Nations Population Fund but didn't do it properly, meaning he let the citation speak for itself and he didn't even use the citation marks correctly. A lot of this information is old and out of date, which can be fine as long it is clearly stated that this is old data. It could even be interesting to compare old data to new and recent data. However most of the data was simply old and not updated and had nothing to be compared to. This article is definitely missing modern information and data, even some of the facts are out of date.
 * 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 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 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?

Further this page is missing a lot of information around human migration that could be discussed. Here are simply a few ideas of what the author could talk about: different types of migration, migration in different countries, at different time periods, less famous theories, and go more in depth in almost everything he mentioned, and mention famous authors and papers on these subjects.

There are many negative opinions on this articles, some even mention deleting it completely because it is too bad or not necessary. In general the whole talk page is about the problems of this article and how vague and out of date it is. Something I found interesting on the talk page was that someone mentioned adding a part on migration during the ice age. Although the information provided on the talk page for the ice age migration is a little vague and the map is not ideal, this could be the start of an interesting and relevant part to the article. Many others also mention that the article doesn't talk about the divers types of migration enough, as well as migration in different parts of the world at certain time periods.
 * 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?

This article is apart of 7 different wiki projects but they all rated it as a C-rating, which clearly is not great. It's also considered high, top and mid- importance depending on the wiki project. This article is a lot more factual and doesn't have a lot of support for its facts, in class whenever the professor gives us facts there is always a citation or sources that will proved support. The same can be said for the statistics given in the article; although we discussed many statistics in class this article just gives statistic without clear sources. Furthermore in class we studied many interesting tables, graphs and maps, here the few maps and graphs present are very vague and don't bring a lot of information. They also don't have a clear citation and a very little to no explanation. Finally we studied different theories in depth and read different authors specialized in them, here the theories are vaguely explained and have little to no citation.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any Wiki Projects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?