User talk:Hayleyjoy96/sandbox

Article Evaluation
1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes everything is relevant and nothing distracted me.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article seemed to stay unbiased and neutral.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.

4. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The last link, https://files.itslearning.com/data/ntnu/44801/bellwood-solheim.pdf does not work. The rest of the links are relevant to the article.

5. 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? Not every fact has a reference, but most of them are cited.

6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? No.

7. 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? A peer reviewer is saying that some of the statements need to be cited.

8. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as sub-class and within the scope of the wikiproject southeast asia and tambayan philippines.

9. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article doesn't go into much detail about what the specific languages were, whereas in class we've gone into more detail about what Austronesian languages are. Hayleyjoy96 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)