User talk:KaylaMcCardle/be bold

Article Evaluation:KaylaMcCardle/bebold

Article Evaluation- Vaccine controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies I do not think that this article accurately identifies both sides of the vaccine controversy. I was more so distracted by the fact that there was only one side of the discussion in this article.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article was not neutral, the article showed only one side of the controversy. It showed history on how vaccines came about and how they have helped previously but not enough information was given about the other side of not vaccinating. It only talked about why we should vaccinate.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? The viewpoints of those who choose not to vaccinate and why they chose this was very underrepresented. It was not touched upon why people wouldn't vaccinate and the science behind that choice.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes the links work and 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? I feel that because this is such a touchy subject there was bias throughout the entire article. I think it is near impossible for it not to have some biased feel to it though because emotions run high on a topic like this. I did not note anywhere that bias was noted. KaylaMcCardle 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)