User:Shelbykatelyn95/sandbox

= Evaluating Sources and Articles =

"The Digital Divide in Canada"

 * This article also covers a lot of ground with the topic
 * Much less discussion on the talk page
 * I don't understand how gender is related to the article
 * There isn't a lot of information under the effects category
 * The cited sources work
 * Most of the information seems relevant and unbiased
 * The "Opposing Views" section could have more information. I see a lot of potential bias.

"The Digital Divide"

 * "Digital Divide" is long and contains so much information
 * The sources cited links work
 * The article did a good job in covering each topic in an unbiased way
 * Very active talk page
 * All the information is relevant to the topic
 * The subcategory "The bit as the unifying variable" is formatted differently from the other subcategory headings.

Article Evaluation
I think both articles are very informative about their topics and will probably continue to develop in the near future. Both articles are informative and lengthy, but they do have some flaws. "The Digital Divide" was much longer than "The Digital Divide in Canada", but I found much more bias in the Canada article. There were plenty of citations throughout the articles. There was some inconsistent formatting with their sub-category headings, but that doesn't make the articles more or less relevant. In "The Digital Divide in Canada", the "Opposing Views" section needed some more relevant information to make the article unbiased. Both had some irrelevant sections. For example, the category labeled "Applications" in "The Digital Divide" article was written more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. "The Digital Divide in Canada" had a category called "Gender" and it seemed irrelevant to the topic. The Talk sections in each article were very different. "The Digital Divide" had a very active talk page which gave helpful instructions on how to add to it. But "The Digital Divide in Canada" had little discussion. Both articles had areas that needed more relevant information. In "The Digital Divide", both the "Locations" subcategory and "Applications" lacked a little content. "The Digital Divide in Canada" had a small category about conflicting viewpoints. "The Digital Divide" had more information in the "Criticisms" category. I checked a few of the sources cited links in each article and they seemed to be working and were relevant to the topics. Overall, I learned a lot about how Wikipedia articles should be set up and look forward to creating one in this class.