User:Linj0/sandbox

The article that I picked is Technology in society. Article title: Urban Dictionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Dictionary)

This article is about an online website that serves primarily as a dictionary for slang terms. It is broken up into four sub-headings starting from history to content to usage and application. There are 30 references at the bottom of the page for sources. The length of the first section is while the other 3 sections are not very detailed with a couple sentences. There is only once picture that is located at the top. Also, at the very top are multiple alerts about the page.

Each fact is referenced with a reliable source that comes from either newspaper, journals, magazine. No information is being pulled from blogs, personal websites etc. Everything represented in the article is relevant to the topic. The article speaks on the founder, history, relevance to court rulings, and application. There is no content that stands out as odd or out of place from what is being discussed because it all retains to the site. The article contains no images, diagrams, or obscene words that could potentially be distracting. There are some instances where the article does seem to contain more personal research than it should. In one sections it speaks about objections with the site and how one object is “concerning”. There is no cited sources that shows where these claims came from. This makes it seem like it is leading toward the view of the writer and not being neutral. This claim is presented with information that is attached to a cited source, an interview of the creator, but the claim itself is not found in the article. Also, the type of dictionary this is, is stated differently throughout the article with ranging viewpoints about if the site actually serves as a dictionary. The first says it is a slang while the other considered it a real dictionary. A medium needs to be meet to clearly distinguish the site. Even though the article is slightly outdated all of the links that are cited do work. They take you directly to the article they pulled information from and or the actual website itself. There is no evident close paraphrasing or plagiarism within the article. There is no warning at the top of the article that would also state that the page is paraphrasing. There is some information that I believe could be added to the page mainly because it has not been recently updated. With an update on some of the citations used and on the set-up of the website the article can go more in depth on the mobile/social media side of the website, gather current website statistics, and news on if there is any new development.

Add political information potentially about Trump and his rash tweets.