User:Samah rahhal/sandbox

Article Evaluation: 'Military Budget'
After reading through the article a few times, I have noted that all of the information is relevant to the topic. It was not very difficult to come to this conclusion as the article is not very lengthy. The article also does a good job of maintaining neutrality, though it does bring up subtle bias' before mentioning that those statements are opinions that carry controversy. Due to the length of the article, no viewpoints are unequally represented, though I noted there is little information about each viewpoint; this is where I plan on making my changes. After clicking on and examining a few of the references, I determined that the links do work and correlate with the information it is linked to throughout the article. Also throughout the article, each fact is followed by a subscript that links to a source that I have concluded are reliable and neutral after researching and reading a few to analyze the article. None of the information is particularly out of date as the article touches on past and future defense spending on a worldwide scale, but much of these portions are lacking details about such spending and budgeting, so more information could prove useful in those areas.Within the Talk page of the article, there have been six conversations that discuss incorrect statements, requests to move information around to better the structure, fact checking the Australian budget mentioned, admiring a fact in the article, adding a citation link, and an update of the European budgets. This article talks about defense spending on a broad scale, in just numbers, while in class we have applied it to the different opinions surrounding the topic, political parties, etc.