User talk:2602:306:BDA5:2F20:F125:E660:AC95:4A56/sandbox

Article Evaluation
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

One thing that the article really distracted me, was the Stone Memorial they have for the 600 kids that have been a victim to gun violence. I think it will be beneficial to the page to talk about how this project came to be. Are people still adding stones to the memorial? Are the kids from the memorial, any of them members or benefited from "KOB" There's only a couple sentences that mention the memorial and it has no external wiki-links that elaborate more on the topic. Who contributed to the making of the memorial, was this done within the organization. There is a lot of information that is not presented from this very impactful memorial. It has great potential to really express the organizations mission.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The Wiki article does not have much information which is hard to explain the organization without seeing one sided. The wiki-article uses a statement quoted from the founder in one of the paragraphs and to me it gave it more of a interview perspective on Diane Latiker (Founder) than a general information page.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

A lot of the information is very underrepresented, there is not enough references or links to the overall page. I believe that this organization has probably done more than what was describe. Maybe include more detailed explanations of the actual programs that happen at the organization.

'''Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

All of the "Programs" tab links are names of organizations that have helped "KOB" but none of them have a Wikipedia article. Those are just dead links that provide no further information.

'''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?'''

The Reference tab included a direct link to the website of Kids of the Block and it has some recent updates on the organization, so the wiki article could use an update on information. Another link attached is to the “Yelp” review on the organization, this can be a questionable source for appropriate representation. An article done on Diane Latiker from the Chicago Tribune and followed by a direct link to her Facebook Page. Which seems to be a very active page in outreaching to the community. There is also an outdated link, which seems to not work at all.

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

There is also an outdated link, which seems to not work at all. Two major links that have updated information are the Organizations website and the Facebook page. A lot of current plans and recent achievements have been posted there, but lack on the wikipedia article.

'''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?'''

There are no conversations on the talk page. Just a list of “things to do” for the page.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

This article is part of Wiki Projects with a category of “Low Importance on the project’s list.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

This wikipedia article does seem to lack a lot of updated information. For majority of the times I have used Wikipedia I don’t think I have encountered one that was still in progress and lacked general information. This article differs a lot from the topics in discussion because a lot of the articles we have seen in class are rich and full of links and resources. Critically analyzing the article it gives insight to what really makes an effective and well done Wikipedia article.

Bee 12 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)