User:Melissaatilano/sandbox

Article Evaluation: World Ocean Conference


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * For the most part it is relevant to the topic. They cut it short, could use more information. It is too vague, it is too broad. This article needs a lot of work.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The information is not up to date. This information is from 2009, we are now in 2018 so it needs to be up to date. It could use a graph showing how climate change is rising and how it is affecting our oceans.
 * What else could be improved?
 * They mentioned that 83 countries attended this conference, I wish they mentioned what their stance was to give a little more background to them.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * I think this article is very underrepresented. There it not a lot of information to learn. It is pretty much just background information and that it all.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * For the most part, the citations to work but there are a few that the page does not exist. The source does support the claims in the article which is vigorous.
 * 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?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?