User talk:Emily Quist/sandbox

Article Evaluation on "European colonization of the Americas" Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? 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? 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? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 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? Emily Quist (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article appears to be relevant, except for the brief mention of the Norse settlements as it is barely written about in the article and could have been excluded from the article or should have more information written about it.
 * It does appear that the European side of the story is more represented than that of the indigenous people, so there is a bias more towards the European conquerors.
 * The Norse exploration and settlement attempt is mentioned very briefly in the introduction and in the section Norse trans-oceanic contact, but is not explained enough to make it relevant to the rest of the article about the Spanish invasion.
 * Some of the sources are a bit out of date, one of them is from 1965 and there are more from the 1960's as well.
 * The article appears to be unbiased, however, the article mostly presents the European side of the story as a majority of the article is on the settlers, and not on the indigenous people to the Americas.
 * The Talk page for this article is brief and includes a good deal of arguments over racism instead of actual constructive criticism or editing.
 * The links work in the article and the source supports what is being said in the cited information, but some of the information in the article could use citations as well.
 * The article was given a C, most likely due to the fact that it is still in development or that some of the sources are out of date. The Article is also a part of a wikiProject as well.
 * It differs from the class discussions as it focuses mainly on the European ideas, and we are talking about both sides of the story as much as is possible due to a certain lack of first person accounts on the side of the indigenous people.