User:SnowSwan1/sandbox

Article Evaluation
This is a re-do of the Evaluating an Article Exercise. I did not realize that there was a list we must pick from. The article I choose to do this evaluation is on Missing and murdered Indigenous women.

Evaluating Content:


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

The article is very in depth on the topic of missing and murdered Indigenous women. There are many sections related to projects on movements toward finding a stop to the topic. There are other sections on history and statistics to provide more background information.


 * Is any information out of date?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

Everything seems very current, with history and background information to provide more information on the facts. There is a lot of information, statistics, and activism towards the topic.


 * What else could be improved?

I do not think anything could be improved. There is a lot of detailed information that is very relevant. The article is a good base for anyone looking up the topic of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

Evaluating Tone:


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

I could not tell if the article went in any biased direction. Overall it seemed neutral and discussed the topic of missing and murdered Indigenous women. I could see how some people who view this as a touchy topic or disagree of it having a biased view because it differs from their own.


 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

I do not think any view points are missing or over-represented. There are little viewpoints of everyone, including the Prime Minster Justin Trudeau, and activists working towards solving this topic.

Evaluating Sources:


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

There are 91 sources used for this article. The links I tried do work properly. The links I checked do have information for the topic, and support what is being said in the section that it is sourcing.


 * 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?

Some references are government sites with neutral and valuable information, such as statistics. The others are from places such as CBC or The Guardian, which could and usually are biased in one direction. The authors of the page did not bring the biases into the Wikipedia page, just the information or viewpoints they hold.

Checking the Talk Page:

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are quite a few conversations going on behind the scenes. Some conversations are about keeping the article neutral. There are very lengthy discussions going on about this.


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

Overall it is rated C-class, Mid Importance. It is part of many projects: WikiProjects Women, WikiProjects United States, WikiProjects Canada, WikiProjects Indigenous People of North America, WikiProjects Death, and WikiProjects Crime.


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

We only brushed on this topic briefly, and have not gone into detail just yet. I feel I now have a good base for when we do start this discussion.

That is all the questions answered that were asked in the training module: Exercise Evaluate Wikipedia.