User:Wongnat7/sandbox

Article Evaluation Greenwich Millennium Village

Content Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the topic, and nothing stood out as if it didn't belong there. There doesn't seem to be anything missing or out of date, as it is a rather recent project, there are photos, location's and method's of getting there, as well as a history of the development and why it was made. Perhaps what could be improved on is how is this building made as a sustainable one, in other words what makes this building different from any normal building? Also maybe public's perception of the building may be important, however it may also lead to the article feeling bias unless u get multiple viewpoints

Tone The article is neutral, there are no over the top claim. No viewpoints are really underrepresented, or over represented, I felt as if the article was just talking about this village in London.

Sources Each citation and link works, and the source supports the claim of the author, however under popular culture, episode 4 is where it claims to make a cameo in, however the link brings you to episode 3 I don't think the sources are very reliable, one of the sources isn't even updated anymore, and the second source seemed to take a bias viewpoint.

Talk The talk that is going on is why a link was removed because it required the site's owners permission in order to do so. There was no proof that the person who added the link had done so, and therefor was deleted. The article is rated Stub-Class under urban studies and planning, under London and is Start class for UK geography This relates to our studies based off of how we live effects our way of sustainable live, this article doesn't really offer a different perspective then the one we drew in class, as living within a community, and having strong social bonds is often highlighted in our readings.