User:SocietySloth/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved?

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

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

Sociology of food

While it is noted in the section by someone who edited it previously, the first and second paragraphs need to be expanded on because claims are being made without proper citations to follow them. The citations in addition to a few sentences that explain why the previous statement is a fact and not a matter of opinion would be helpful. This is the case for a decent portion of the article, which also leads me to believe that it isn't as neutral as it could be. The article seems to lean towards the negative parts of the sociology of food and its impact on the little people.

The sections are all relevant although I do question the relevance of psychology and disorders section a little just because psychology gets into more details that sociology would.

As far as citations there could be a lot more, although the ones that are included are generally helpful. The gaps between the citations though are too big and make some facts look like opinions (even when there is evidence that could be linked to support them). The linked in citations worked for me, but some of them are too general. There need to be more topic based citations and fewer that are defined based.

There isn't much going on in the talk section of this page but I think that this is because it is being used as a learning spot for wiki users because it has been up long enough for it to have been fixed by now.

Sustainable Agriculture

This article is nicely outlined and there are ample citations to back the claims made. It is also a neutral article, which allows it to be more educational as opposed to sparking some type of reaction in the reader.

The article has relevant sections and their information is up to date. I can't think of anything I would add because in the sections where you would think about something to add the very next sentence covers it. The citations are relevant and reliable the sources are also able to be helpful when launching future research for the readers.

As far as its relevance, I think this is a starting point type of article. It is general enough that it is able to be relevant in a number of topics and includes key principles that will launch you into other topics within this general idea. It could have a better lead, but I think the rest of the article makes up for it. This isn't an article you would necessarily read because it was interesting but instead because it was informational. It is apart of a wiki project environment and has a good deal of edits and relevant conversations going on around it. SocietySloth (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Think back to how to evaluate an article. Look at the article's content, tone, and sourcing.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Are some areas under- or over-developed? Is it written neutrally? Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable? What can you add? Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page.

Black Land Loss in the US

The content is relevant to the topic and most sections are pretty well developed. It is also written with a neutral tone (as neutral as one can be when talking about displacement). Most claims have a reliable citation. I would add a few more specific sections like after the section mentioning rice plantation farming. While a connection could be made between the displacement of blacks and the type of crop grown in that area, it might make this article less neutral. To avoid this I would only add small tidbits of information that link to the overall topic but still show the impact of displacement.SocietySloth (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible sources:

Black Rice (the book)

Colmore, C., Fraser, R., & Diop, A. (2013, December). African-American Land Loss and Sustainable Forestry in the Southeast: An Analysis of the Issues, Opportunities, and Gaps. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2013december/a2.php

FSCLAF. (n.d.). Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund. Retrieved from http://www.federationsoutherncoop.com/landloss.htm

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W. W. Norton & Company. T., W., R., A., S., L.Taylor, H., E., J.,. . . E. (1998, February 09). The African American Odyssey: A Quest for Full Citizenship Reconstruction and Its Aftermath. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african-american-odyssey/reconstruction.html SocietySloth (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)