User:Mnperez 19 98/sandbox

text

bold

Article Evaluation

First Street, Los Angeles

Everything does seem relevant to the article topic. What distracted me was the fact there was not elaboration in subcategories. Not enough subcategories in the article either.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Is there anything that distracted you?

Article is neutral, there is little to non presence of biased.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is not lengthy, it leads to the underrepresentation of 1st Street, LA. The links provided do work, the images they provide are from credible sources as well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Non biased references, most are street names and geographic knowledge. Check out the Talk page of the article. There is not anyone having an ongoing conversation. If we were to discuss First Street in Los Angeles we would mention topics such as demographics, housing, amenities, general plan, or population ; however all these topics aren't mentioned.
 * 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? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 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? Rated a low importance stub. Yes, First Street is supported by Los Angeles Task Force. This article is with in scope of Wiki Project a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S State of California on Wiki.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?