User:Zbrooks142/sandbox


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The information doesn't have a clear timeline or structure, but it all appears to be relevant to the article.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? appears neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Needs a general
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article links work but all citations are put at end of paragraphs, don't know which cite goes to which fact.
 * 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?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 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?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

it only talks about a few scientists from each topic