User talk:Cohenl1017/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Social Disorganization Theory

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? -One distracting factor that was included in this article was the section on Thomas and Znanieck. While these two theorists are related to social disorganization theory, they do not directly contribute to one's understanding of it. The article seemed to go a little to broad for a basic understanding of the theory.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? -One very essential thing that is missing is the descriptions of each of the zones, this was not included except for the fact that zone two was the area with the most "disorganization." This directly links how ecology can be used to explain the findings of Shaw and McKay so it is important to include. The information though, did not seem to be out of date. There are some citations missing in the beginning paragraphs.

What else could be improved? -One main thing that could be done to improve the article itself would be to include an image of the zone maps, this would allow for one to see where they are located, that they can concentric, and how it relates to forest succession.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -The article does not swing one way or another, however it is written very colloquially which might be changed as well.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -One thing is that is not represented on the page would be the disputes against the theory, while the explanation of the theory is present, it is also important to know what people are saying about its credibility.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? -all of the citations for this article in particular are books, therefore I was not able to open the references to view and evaluate.

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 addition of some online sources might be beneficial so an individual could look at where the information came from.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? -There are no current conversations going on about the topic, however ti has been noted that it reads a little like a "personal reflection."

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? -it is referred to as a beginning article and is rated as mid-importance.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? -This page provides a larger scope to the theory and explains how the ideas of other theorists have contributed to it besides just Shaw and McKay.