User:Mattieryan/sandbox

Evaluating Content
All of the content in this Wikipedia article is relevant to the overarching subject of the article: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It adequately explains the process of attempting to pass, passing, and then implementing the Act into America’s already largely segregated society at the time. There was nothing that distracted from the main subject of the article.

The article is up-to-date with any information that is relevant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including the recent ruling in April of 2017 regarding Title VII's inability to cover cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. More information should be added under the "Lobbying efforts" heading with regards to how much/what their influence was on the Act's passage.

Evaluating Tone
The article is factual and is unbiased. This is largely because the issue of segregation and racism in America today is largely rejected and frowned upon. The issue is no longer taboo as it once was.

The article accurately depicts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while avoiding any particular viewpoint over another. This includes explaining the effects of the legislation - both positive and negative - while not emphasizing an emotional connection to one race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

Evaluating Sources
Of the links accessed, all worked and all contributed to support the claims made in the article. All references come from reputable sources, including many large-scale databases and university websites. Most of the sources that are biased towards ending discrimination are clearly indicated in their titles.

Checking the Talk Page
Many typos and corrections have been made in the Talk Page of this article. This article is apart of eight WikiProjects and is typically rated B-class with mid- to top-importance.

Evaluating Content
All of the content in the Wikipedia article on the gender pay gap is relevant to the topic of the gender wage gap as a global issue. There was nothing that distracted from the topic at hand. Something that could have been addressed in the article but was not is the potential societal norm violation of men taking paternal leave to care for children and the effect that has on female versus male wage earnings and the wage divide. The content appears to be up-to-date.

Evaluating Tone
While this Wikipedia article on the gender wage gap does address multiple theories on the issue, including the neoclassical model and the monopsony explanation, the article does not address the possibility of the wage gap not existing, which many people believe today. Therefore, this article can be considered biased towards the wage gap existing rather than being simply a myth. This particular viewpoint is particularly over-represented.

Evaluating Sources
Of the links provided in this article, the ones checked were easily and readily accessible. However, on six occasions, citations are clearly indicated as being needed and not provided. Biases are not indicated throughout the article. A long list of 132 references are provided at the end of the article, and of the links checked, every link provided in the article refers the reader to another relevant Wikipedia article.

Checking the Talk Page
Subtle syntax changes are indicated in the Talk Page. Also, some topics were deemed irrelevant, particularly in the section on the gender wage gap in Brazil. Other than that, the only other changes that were made were people adding more information in sections. This article is apart of five WikiProjects and is typically rated C-class with mid- to high-importance.