User:Katybaby109/sandbox


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article was relevant. I didn't see anything that was completely off subject. It was a little hard to keep up with the amount of info though. There is a mound of information all over the place with no really narrative leading from one type of information to the next which was a bit distracting for me. It did seem like every other word was blue and clicked to another link so it was difficult to read personally I prefer all my information in black and white and links listed below but that's my personal preference.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I don't know a whole lot about the Lowell observatory but everything looked correct and up to date as far as I could tell. The last edit was about 2 months ago so its pretty current.
 * What else could be improved?
 * The order of the information and the way its presented, it's all kind of just thrown in there and could be organized better.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It was simply facts. I did not see any opinions anywhere in the article or anything like "this is the best" etc. No biased tone int he text either. Seemed completely neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As I said previously it was simply facts and i would consider viewpoints to be the same as opinions and I didn't see any throughout the article. I would say all of it was equally represented.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links do work, the links confirm the information throughout the article as well. I didn't see any information that was off, or different from what wikipedia had listed.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * There are a plethora of references and sources but they all lead back to other wiki pages. most hyperlinks don't work though. I would say the sources are mostly neutral some seem to be boosting the observatory to get more people interested but that's bound to happen. For the most part i think they all look legit.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * So i am not familiar with wikipedia much so I'm not sure what this question is asking but I will ask Jenny is class to clarify.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a starter article which is surprising because it seems to have lots of info and edits. I don't know if its Wiki project, so I will also ask Jenny for help during class on this question as well. it wasn't listed in the wiki projects so I don't believe it is one.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about this topic in class, not sure if we even will, but it does give me a little bit more information on telescopes and how they can be used which is helpful. The article also discussed the discovery of Pluto which was very interesting to me, but i do wish they went into further depth about that, but then again this article is about the observatory not the discovery of Pluto so its all good.