User talk:CastelaTiger/sandbox

Article Evaluation Labeling Theory Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The items in the article are relevant, but I see some things should be their own article rather than be in the same article (The Mentally Ill and Homosexual sections.). Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The information seems up to date but they could use more images. What else could be improved? They could try to shorten some of the paragraphs or provide links to a full article explain the points they are making. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral and doesn't seem biased toward on group when reading it. Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? I believe that the viewpoints of homosexuality and mentally ill are over represented as they didn't dive about other racial beliefs or religious beliefs but only use two being these. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations and links in the article work. 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? Each fact seems appropriate with a source closely before or after the statements used for said fact. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some editing with grammar people wanting more labeling when it comes to other groups and minorities. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C and psychology. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have yet to talk about the theory in class. Where is a section about labeling regarding upper class groups?CastelaTiger (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)