User talk:Kaylachargois/sandbox

Article Evaluation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Most everything in the article was relevant in this case to the particular subject being discussed. The only section that slightly distracted me was the section on gun control because the text had a heavy political tone which took away from the sole issue at hand being the shooting itself. I do believe though that discussions about gun control do go hand in hand with incidents of gun violence, but in this case it slightly took away from the rest of the article and turned the attention away from the incident to laws and political ideologies. •Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The section of the article regarding solely the incidence of the shooting is fairly neutral as it is just an account of the event. However, the sections on gun control and political reactions seem to have an slight underlying bias as the writer dedicated a large chunk of the article discussing the issue of gun control as a one sided argument in the sense that the author included and put a lot of emphasis on the idea of cracking down on gun laws, but not much information on the opposing side. The author did not touch much at all on the issue of mental health which is believed to have played a major factor, but instead focused on what is being done and said in relation to gun control and the advocacy surrounding it. •Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe in a sense the viewpoint of the victims is slightly under represented as the toll this incident had is briefly discussed. I also believe that the people who oppose gun control and believe that having guns is the answer are largely under represented in this particular article. •Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations I clicked on did lead me to working links that supported the claims in the article as they were assigned. •Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? All of the information is up to date because this is such a recent event, but statements from the victims would be a helpful insight into fully understanding the tragedy as well as from a source that knew the shooter. •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 a variety of conversations going on about this article. I am surprised by some of the conversations going on as they are very very insensitive especially in regards to a topic involving death. Some of the conversations are about issues as trivial as the "name of the shooting" and how it should be referenced as the valentines day murders. Other comments are more serious in regards to questions about inconsistent information amongst sources about information on the shooter regarding his affiliation with a branch of a white supremacist group or something similar. Most of the conversations related to the article are questions for the author about further information. •How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Mayra said I could skip this question. •How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we discussed shootings as an issue regarding a need to feel dominant or masculine as it relates to our conversation about the "tough guise". We discussed violence as a way to reaffirm a persons dominance who may feel that they have lost it. The article however does not look at the issue from the standpoint of trying to figure out the root cause or even motivation, but instead just as a tragedy that has a occurred. In addition, we discussed in depth the implications of race and the effect they have in terms of the treatment of criminals due to their race. However, the article did not touch at all really on the shooters race or the way he is being treated or portrayed in the media.