User:Maximillian castro120/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The Wikipedia article of Epicureanism seems top-notch and edited by Wikipedia's most adept editors. Nothing about the article was distracting, the information was relevant, and I cannot think of anything that could be improved on. Additionally, the tone is neutral and there is no bias within the article. Facts are paired with fantastic citations with links that actually work! On the other hand, the "talk" page is a complete mess. Right off the bat, there were some glaring distractions that prevented me from taking the talk page seriously. The first heading is titled "What's with the huge quote from the watchtower society?". The entire seems to be stitched together of mish-mash knowledge of Epicureanism. The whole article needs to be erased and rebuilt from the ground up. The article appears to be neutral until a user writes, "what's the difference?you guys are gay".

= Citations = Did you know that today is international blasphemy day? In some countries, blasphemy is punishable by death. Even in the United States, there are some states that still forbid blasphemy.

= Edits on other articles = I chose the "Rock-O-Rama" Wikipedia article and since there was little to no information on Rock-O-Rama, I added a link to its contemporary online store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-O-Rama