User:YmiLee/sandbox


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference


 * Yes. For the most part each of the citations come from reliable sources such as from websites, journals, and articles. However, some of the links are outdated or do not work.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, I really like the structure of the article. There wasn't really anything that distracted me.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, most of the information from this article is fact based.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The information comes from neutral sources in the form of websites, journals, and articles.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, it's pretty neutral.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Some of the links do not work. I couldn't spot any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most of the information comes from the 20th century so it is pretty up to date. There is always more information that could be added, but I don't see anything wrong with the article itself.


 * Check the "talk" page of the article - what is the Wikipedia community saying about how to present this topic? How is the article rated in terms of Wikipedia's quality scale?
 * Most of the information is UK oriented. The article is rated Start-Class, High Importance.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Yes, they come from reliable websites, journals, and books.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything is relevant to the topic. There wasn't anything that distracted me.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is neutral for the most part and is fact based.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The information comes from reliable websites, journals, and books. They come from neutral sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the viewpoints are pretty neutral.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * There is one link that doesn't work. I couldn't find paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most of the information comes from the 21st century so it's pretty up to date.
 * Check the "talk" page of the article - what is the Wikipedia community saying about how to present this topic? How is the article rated in terms of Wikipedia's quality scale?
 * Most of the feedback is based on very technical things. This article is rated as C-Class/Mid/High Importance.
 * What sections in this article are different than in the Community Development article? What new information or different information is presented in the two?
 * The sections in the Community Development article are definitions, approaches, history, and references. The sections in the Good Governance article are forms, reform and standards, worldwide governance indicators, effects, role of political parties, scholarly approaches, criticism, and references.
 * Think back to when you did an article critique. What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page.
 * I mostly want to focus on fixing up the sources because it looks pretty hard to follow. There seems to be a few things missing from the page.

Being bold is important on Wikipedia.