User:Shelby030520/sandbox


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

It all is relevant to the topic and explains both the negative and positive side of Eugenics. The in fiction section tells about a film that provides an example of eugenics, but I don't feel it is necessary to the article as a whole.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article explains view points on eugenics from different people, but doesn't particularly appear to be biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article does a good job of giving the viewpoints equal presentation. It explains both sides of eugenics good and bad, and even contains a section about he controversies.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links that I checked did work and supported the article. They explained the information for which they were cited for.


 * 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 citations that I reviewed were from journals of sociology and oxford bibliographies which are scholarly references and therefore seemed to be appropriate. One of the sources does seem to share information that may be opinion based, but they don't appear to be completely biased.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The article explains the topic in a wide time range up to about 2015. Since 2015 was five almost six years ago I feel as though a more updated section could be added, like a eugenics today section.


 * 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 are discussions on the talk page the one that stuck out to me was the "argue" vs "say". There also is another fictional example as well.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is in interest to 13 wikiprojects. It is rated C-class fro most of the wikiprojects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We have yet to talk about this topic in class.

Choosing Article
Diseases and Epidemics of the 19th Century


 * Why choose article

I feel as though the article is short for it to be about a whole century. Each section of the article has a small amount of info and I feel we can use the resources given to us to find more information on each section.


 * What's missing?

The article has a quite a bit of information on Cholera, but the other sections of the article are much shorter and some are missing information on amounts of deaths.


 * What want to do?

I want to add to the shorter articles and include the amounts of deaths and more on where the diseases hit the hardest. As well as adding any information that I find that feels necessary to include in the article.

Sources

Incurable and Intolerable: Chronic Disease and Slow Death in Nineteenth Century France; Szabo, Jason; Rutgers University Press  2009

The 1855 Chlorea Epidemic in Ferrara: Lessons from Old Data Reanalysed with Modern Means; Jan P. Vandenbroucke, Vol. 18, No. 7 (2003), pp. 599-602

Scarlet Fever
In the mid-nineteenth century the mortality caused by Scarlet Fever rose in England and Wales.