User:SydneeG/sandbox


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I thought that everything in the article was relevant to the topic. The main thing that distracted me was punctation errors.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I don't think the article was neutral. This can be seen with the choice of words used from the police officer. It also leans toward implementing strict gun laws rather than looking at all of the factors that caused Cruz to perform this terrible act.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that mental health is underrepresented for this situation. I don't think anything was overrepresented.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * citations work and they 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?
 * I believe that all sources are reliable. The sources talking about gun laws are biased.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * This information is not out of date since it was so recent. Any new information that comes out will be added.
 * 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 a lot of admissions to the talk page, so a lot of edits are being made. This was such a recent occurrence, so information is going to be changed as it is learned and exposed to the public.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Our class discussions are more opinionated rather than fact oriented like this article.