User:Zcooper11/sandbox

1. Kalantari, Behrooz. "Media and the Bureaucracy in the United States." Government Public Relations: A Reader (2007). 2. Antonelli, Maria Alessandra. "Mass Media, Information and the Size of Bureaucracy." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013): 562-569. 3. Mergel, Ines. "The Social Media Challenge in the Public Sector." N.p., n.d. Web 4. Ruder, Alex. "The Media and Bureaucratic Accountability." N.p., n.d. Web. 5. Corbett, Julia B. "Media, Bureaucracy, and the Success of Social Protest: Newspaper Coverage of Environmental Movement Groups." N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.

Zcooper11 Comprehensiveness 1.	Yes the lead section of the article is precise and clear, it is an evaluation of the propaganda in the United States. 2.	Key points from my understanding is the war on drugs, guns, information and education. 3.	Yes the conclusions does include key information however remember the conclusion is a summary of everything you have talked about. 4.	Yes the points are well supported however no references 5.	Yes the topic is clear, propaganda in the united states 6.	No it does not include detailed scholarly support 7.	I see many contributions but no scholarly support 8.	Yes the tone of the point of view is clear as it becomes debatable 9.	No nuances and subtle distinctions are clarified Sourcing 1.	No claims are not clear because most of this is history 2.	It’s not reliable because there are few references if any 3.	No sources are represented or an approval form 4.	The language is precise and with my knowledge of history I am sure that the information collected is correct. However no sources are available. 5.	The article does have unsourced information most statements made are facts Neutrality 1.	Yes the article doe have neutral viewpoint since this is history most viewpoint are accurate 2.	Yes the article does avoid stating opinions 3.	The article is stating facts no matter how serious they are the facts are facts and apart of American history 4.	The balance for a new reader who doesn’t know much about this subject may feel that this is unequal treatment. Readability 1.	The article is written well 2.	Sentences are formed correctly there are a few grammar errors but those can be corrected quickly 3.	n/a 4.	Yes the information is available to Wikipedia’s broad audience 5.	The language of this article is easy to understand 6.	The group does not have many sub articles however you can see they have some type of plan it just needs work 7.	Yes the focus is clear the organization is lacking it can be better 8.	The paragraphs are well structured I can go with the flow as I read the article it was not difficult 9.	Yes to my knowledge however it’s not complete 10.	Yes formatting does need work however the article is not finished 11.	There is no section heading 12.	No links available 13.	No images available 14.	n/a 15.	n/a

Tbm28 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)