User talk:Dreasalvador/sandbox

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article seemed relevant to the article topic or under the intended sub-heading.

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

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Some sub headings could use more information, making them seem underrepresented. I feel like more information could go under some specific sub headings.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Four out of the five citations that I checked worked. For the citations that worked, they do 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?
 * Most of the references seem to come from an appropriate, reliable source. Since this is an artist many of the references come from museums or other places of art as well as location of where his art has been published.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most information seems to be recent or around the time that the artist was alive. Like stated before some sub-heading could use more information if there is still any out there that could be cited/added.

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 conversations about adding to how the artists sexuality influenced his art, adding to his religious beliefs, more about his career, and about his personal life.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Not sure how it is rated. I think it is part of WikiProjects since there are many individuals who are looking forward to make further improvements to this artists page.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia is able to go into further depth about the topic since there are multiple references being used and people who have taken the time to research more where as in class we cannot access other sources while having the discussion in class. Our knowledge of the subject is limited because of the extra sources that Wikipedia has.