User:Meganlewis96/sandbox

Evaluate Wikipedia Assignment- Megan Lewis Category:Article proposal
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article connected back to aging, however, there are sections in this article, such as healthcare demands and economics, that seemed like they would be better suited on a different page or a page of their own. Healthcare and economic issues are important topics, but it seems like they would be more beneficial on their own pages with a brief mention and link on the aging page, instead of taking up a sections of their own. Also, there was a lot of jumping around between topics during the introduction and that was very distracting. It did not flow and you could tell that many different people kept adding things to it. The article jumped from the definition of aging, to immortality, to theories, and then life prolonging measures all within a couple of sentences.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is a bias towards a negative outlook on aging, many of the sections talk about steep physical and mental decline, aging effects on the economy, and it seems to glamorize immortality. This is not true throughout the whole article, there are points thrown in about older adults helping with children and volunteer work but most of the sections seem to be portraying a negative image of aging.
 * Check a few citations (hint: focus on the section about Sociology). Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Where do the citations come from?
 * Many of the links, especially in the section about sociology, do not work. It is difficult to determine whether or not the source supports the claims in the article because links are missing and some citations are not done correctly. The citations come from a variety of different sources such as books, articles, peer reviewed journals, and unreliable websites.
 * 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?
 * No, not all of the facts are referenced with a reliable reference. The information comes from books, journals, and some unreliable websites. Some information is not cited at all, so it is unknown where it came from. Not all of these sources are neutral, for example, CNN and other news articles were used. These biases and unreliable sources were not noted or pointed out.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * A lot of the information holds up but the latest source I saw was from 2015, so more recent articles and findings would be helpful to add to this page.
 * 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?
 * In the talk section, editors are talking about correcting spelling, reviewing new information added to this page, and possible new information that could be added later.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a B-class, high importance in science, biology, and medicine. It is also part of the WikiProjects: ageing and culture, biology, health and fitness, medicine, and oldest people.