User:Tlanter/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

Everything was pretty relevant to the article topic; however the section including lobbying efforts did not contain much information and was not that essential to the article's topic.

- Is any information out of date?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

All the information was in date; however it could include how this act still effects our lives today.

- What else could be improved?

Perhaps moving the Major Features of the Act near the summary or details of the Civil Rights Act would be more beneficial.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article remained somewhat neutral; however in the origins section it leaned biased towards what the bill did not include and what was wrong with it. It occasionally had bias terminology, but remained consistently pretty neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints of those that opposed the Civil Rights act is underrepresented
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The sources support the claims in the article however they are all links to other wikipedia articles not any outside sources.
 * 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 fact is referenced with a reliable reference and most of this information comes from a variety of sources including books and academic journals. Some of these sources are neutral; however it appears that some of the sources of bias, but it is not noted.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Hopefully how to condense the contents of the article into better subjects that are more concise and current.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated high, but it is not a part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article is more of a history lesson while in our class discussion we are using evidence to prove why this happened and how.