User:Tiffbanh/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The article is relevant, but the only thing that seems distracting to me would be the first sentence. It seems too wordy for me and would possibly look better if it was composed of two sentences instead.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It felt very natural and unbiased. The facts were all very informational versus there being any claims.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? They feel very well-represented. Included many of her accomplishments while including things about her early life.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links do work. The supports well represents the claims.

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? Each source is reliable and appropriate to use for Dr. Beverly Tatum. Each source comes very scholarly works and were all neutral.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? No. Each source seems to be updated and very modernized. Closely revised from 2013 until now.

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 is none.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More about her personal life on Wikipedia than in class.