User:Liamharvey21/sandbox/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Wikipedia article- fake news

Content- Everything in the article seems relevant to the article topic. The article is organized by discussing how to indetify Fake News, then the history of Fake News by century or time period, and then focuses on Fake News within specific countries. Nothing seems to distract to distract me. All the information seems updated, and there are many edits in the revision history. Although the article is missing a section on Russia and how Fake News pertains to the country. There are over 300 citations, however the editors should still continue adding information about Fake News.

Tone- The article is neutral in tone and there are no particular bias viewpoints. The fake news page presents a mix of scholarly data and arguments, so there is no dominant or underepresented viewpoint.

Sources- The links work. The sources support the claims in the article. Every fact has a citation with an appropriate, reliable reference: academic scholars always. The information comes from these scholars' research papers. The sources are neutral. There is little to no bias because of the variety of sources and neutral tone of the article.

Talk- The conversations are usually discussing about whether the news sources have a left-leaning bias, specifically the Buzzfeed news sources. However, from my research paper I found that this source is credible and widely cited in many other academic papers. Most of the conversations are people stating that the article is too hard/ unreppresentative of Donald Trump's interaction with fake news. I could not find any rating on this article, which is concerning. It is not part of any WikiProjects. The discussions are much more relaxed, almost reddit-like. Also, the organization of indenting the comments seems like a thread, which is less professional. Ultimately, the talk page is where subjectivity spills in from editors and objectivity leaves the domain.