User:Megan.ashley/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article Title: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * There are several direct quotes in this article, even though the Wikipedia tutorial said we should paraphrase our information. There is even a large paragraph in the Announcement section that consists almost entirely of quotes. I believe some of these quotes should be rewritten in the author's own words (but still remain cited).
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Because U.S. public opinion about the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is largely negative, the article does appear a little bit biased against it. Most claims about the withdrawal are not in support of the withdrawal and draw attention to its errors. However, the author never explicitly states his or her negative opinion about the withdrawal. I believe the claims are appropriate, because they accurately discuss the majority of U.S. public opinion. There are a few comments about the Americans in support of the withdrawal, as well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * While they aren’t forgotten, the viewpoints of those Americans who support the withdrawal are arguably underrepresented in this article. However, it’s also fair to remember that the majority of Americans do not support the withdrawal.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * “It has been argued that…” is one of a few phrases used in this article that neglected to name its source. In the Wikipedia tutorial, we learned that these passive phrases are too vague and don’t specifically reference where the information came from. Who has argued this?
 * Credible sources like the Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Yale Review are used in this article. There are 218 sources in total, so the article uses a variety of sources, like the tutorial encouraged. However, this does mean that there are some questionable sources, like Twitter, that are cited in the article.
 * Just about every fact is sourced. The article does an excellent job of referencing its facts.
 * I tested the links to a few of the citations, and they do work.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The article has been updated fairly recently and seems to include all relevant information.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * This is a very popular article, and its Talk page is extremely long. The editors mainly seem to be arguing about bias based on their own personal political opinions. There are also suggestions about ensuring balance in both the Effects and the Responses sections, integrating videos, changing the wording of some sentences and tightening up the article, shortening the length of the article, and eliminating Twitter as a source. Honestly, the majority of comments on this page were petty and mean, and it was tiring to read. It became more of a factless political argument than a search for knowledge.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of the following Wikiprojects: WikiProject Environment / Climate Change, WikiProject Organizations, and WikiProject United States. It’s rated C-class, High-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class we rely heavily on polls to reflect U.S. public opinion. This article did draw on several polls to demonstrate the U.S. public opinion on withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, like we do. However, it also referenced statements from U.S. Representatives and Senators, who represent the people, as well as direct quotes and written media analyses of public opinion.

Bibliography for Wiki Project: US Public Opinion on NAFTA

 * Source 1: Polling Report
 * http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm
 * Pew Research Center. Oct. 25-30, 2017. N=1,504 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.
 * CBS News Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2017. N=1, 111 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4
 * Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. July 8-12, 2017. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
 * NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). April 26-30, 2015. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
 * Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey conducted by Abt SRBI. April 23-27, 2008. N=1,502 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
 * Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 19-20, 2004. N=1,019 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
 * Program on International Policy Attitudes. Oct. 21-29, 1999. N=1,826 adults nationwide.
 * Source 2: Gallup
 * Article (and poll) 1: Americans Split on Whether NAFTA Is Good or Bad for U.S.
 * http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx
 * Article (and poll) 2: Americans Split on Idea of Withdrawing From Trade Treaties
 * http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx
 * Article (and poll) 3: Opinion Briefing: North American Free Trade Agreement
 * http://news.gallup.com/poll/113200/Opinion-Briefing-North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement.aspx
 * Source 3: PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes)
 * Article 1: In Mexico, U.S. and Canada, Public Support for NAFTA Surprisingly Strong, Given each Country Sees Grass as Greener on the Other Side
 * http://worldpublicopinion.net/us-public-sees-us-trade-policy-as-not-serving-public-but-multinational-corporations/
 * Article 2: US Public Sees US Trade Policy as Not Serving Public, But Multinational Corporations
 * http://worldpublicopinion.net/us-public-sees-us-trade-policy-as-not-serving-public-but-multinational-corporations/
 * Source 4: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
 * Article 1: NAFTA Renegotiation and the Uncertain Future of US Trade Policy
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/event/nafta-renegotiation-and-uncertain-future-us-trade-policy
 * Article 2: While More Americans Than Ever Believe in International Trade, NAFTA Gets Mixed Reviews
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/running-numbers/while-more-americans-ever-believe-international-trade-nafta-gets-mixed-reviews
 * Article 3: Pro-Trade Views on the Rise, Partisan Divisions on NAFTA Widen
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/pro-trade-views-rise-partisan-divisions-nafta-widen
 * Article 4: At NAFTA’s Platinum Anniversary: American Attitudes Toward Cross-Border Ties
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/naftas-platinum-anniversary-american-attitudes-toward-cross-border-ties
 * Article 5: Public Opinion and Its Support for Free(ish) Trade
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/running-numbers/public-opinion-and-its-support-freeish-trade
 * Article 6: Is the Public Really Learning to Love Globalization?
 * https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/running-numbers/public-really-learning-love-globalization
 * Source 5: Globalization, Globalización, Globalisation: Public Opinion and NAFTA by J. Merolla, L.B. Stephenson, and C.J. Wilson
 * Source 6:  American and Canadian assessments of NAFTA: Opinion on continental policy and its drivers by S. Bennett

Article Evaluation: NAFTA
Article Title: North American Free Trade Agreement
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * There is no information in this article that seems out of place or distracting. There are a few sections that need to be updated or expanded, but I do not believe that the existing information is wrong or irrelevant.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is largely neutral, but the section about President Trump and his appeal to pull out of NAFTA does seem a bit biased. Of course, the article states that political scientists agree there will be negative impacts if we pull out of NAFTA, and if that’s the professional census, then it should be included. However, there remains a lot of controversy about bias and political stances in the talk page.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe that the topic of public opinion on NAFTA is largely underrepresented. There is little to no information on how the citizens of this country view the agreement. I’m planning to add a section about US public opinion on NAFTA, but I’d be curious to know what the Canadian and Mexican public opinions are, too.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links that I checked worked, and they appear to support the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The references are for the most part appropriate and reliable. The article has been “semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it,” so I believe the references must be reliable in order to be included.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The sections on Donald Trump and on legal disputes is outdated, and the section on negotiation, ratification, and revision needs more information. Information about US public opinion on NAFTA is also missing, and so I plan to add a new section devoted to that topic.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a lot of controversy on the Talk page of this article. Both Republican and Democratic Wiki editors are accusing the other side of being biased, and there are a lot of political arguments in the comments. However, many of these disagreements seem personal and political instead of about factual improvement for the article. Also, I posted my sources on the Talk page last week and asked for feedback, but I haven’t received any yet.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated C-class, low to top importance. It’s a part of the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Organizations, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject North America, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Trade, WikiProject Barack Obama, and WikiProject United States Public Policy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class, we talk about a subject, we get a lot of our facts and information from professional polls. I didn’t see polls used that often in this article, and so I plan to add in polls as sources when I add the US public opinion section.