User:Tblevin3/sandbox

Article Evaluation
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The article concerns Agenda Setting Theory and is extremely well put together by someone very familiar with the topic of AST and its real-world applications.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It is extremely neutral in its position and even includes a “Critiques” section that allows for different issues people have with this theory.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The contributions section is a bit lacking in its listing of individuals and institutions who have contributed to the research of this theory.
 * Check 3-5 citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * I was only able to find one citation with a link that did not work anymore. However, I did also notice that many of the academic sources listed towards the beginning of the article are not linked and simply listed in a non-hyperlink format leading to me believe that either the information was supplied by an individual with a deep knowledge of this subject or the contributor faked the majority of the information in this 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?
 * Most of the facts and knowledge are sourced from academic journals and textbooks with various links to mainstream news websites where they are highlighting articles that deal with Agenda Setting Theory.
 * 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?
 * Much of the conversation on the Talk page revolves around peer reviews of the page by other classes who are probably conducting the same type of exercise as our course. There are a couple of edits that detail different sections that required more intensive editing, however the majority is dedicated to reviews.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a “Start-class” article and is a part of the Wikiproject Media that is working towards improving topics surrounding the media and the accuracy with which they are presented.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article addresses the topic in a very broad manner without specifically addressing the theory in an authorial point of view, instead choosing to define the theory in a straightforward manner that is up to date with the theory itself.