User talk:Jay1844/sandbox

Article Evaluation

In the article Reaganomics, all the information provided stayed on topic and did not distract from the point of the article. The article started out by giving background information for why America switched to Reagan and trickle-down economics. Then told what Reagan's policies were and how they affected different parts of the United States such as: unemployment rates, GDP levels, taxes, etc.. Then wrapped up by stating how the United States was functioning economically during President Reagan's time compared to pre-Reagan and post-Reagan. The information provided was able to properly describe Reaganomics without getting distracted from the purpose of the article.

Reaganomics was able to stay mostly neutral besides a few points where the proper titles were not used; that could imply biases against one party over the other. The article was able to stay neutral by stating facts and backing them up with sources rather than give an opinion on a topic. On the other hand there were a couple points in the article where the proper titles were not given such as: President Clinton being called Mr. Clinton, and President Truman being called Harry S. Truman. This stands out because all the other Presidents mentioned were given the proper respect. This could show bias that could reflect on how the article is written, but other than those couple points the article stuck to the facts and stayed neutral throughout.

In the article, there were only two topics that were underrepresented while all the other topics were well represented. The two topics that were underrepresented were titled Unemployment Rates and GDP Growth. These were underrepresented because there was only a sentence or two written about them while all the other topics were well formed paragraphs. The other paragraphs were well represented because they contained multiple factual sentences and were talked about for longer than a sentence. That is what differed between underrepresented parts and well represented parts of the article had.

Checking a few of the links they were all working, placed in the correct spots, and backed up the claims of the article. A couple links that were checked in detail were link number 4 (Reagan's Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink), link 42 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPC/downloaddata?cid=32267). These two links had factual material that backed up what the article Reaganomics stated. Link 42 gave a data chart that gave actual numbers to reinforce the percentages given by Reaganomics. Then went through a few more links such as Link 16 (Tragic Death of the Temporary Tax Cut), Link 34 (Civilian Unemployment Rate), and Link 59 (Will the Tax Cuts Ultimately Pay for Themselves). These links were all in working condition and gave factual information that proved the information given by Reaganomics. These links were factual, working, and helped to reassure the points given by Reaganomics.

Jay1844 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Jay1844