User talk:Cmartinez22/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Acacia Prison Everything is relevant. There could be a picture of the actual prison, not just it's location. State that the prison already went under renovations in 2015, now that it's 2018. Add the turnout of inmates that have benefited from the programs they offer there. Add more sources and links. Article is neutral, no bias toward any position. View points are underrepresented, lack of viewpoints. Link does work. Source supports claims of running Acacia prison and other multiple Australian prisons There are no facts with references. There are no conversations about this topic It is rated as low-importance. It is part of the WikiProject Australia and WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities. Wikipedia discusses this topic in little more depth than we've talked about in class. We haven't talked about the Acacia Prison in class at all.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 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?
 * 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?