User talk:Lbroc001/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I think the different subsets of group decision making are included appropriately. I though the inclusion of group decision making at the very end of the article provided both closure and and a great description of the social effects of group decision making. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is very neutral, focusing solely on the facts and confirmed effects of group decision making. Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? I don't think there are any viewpoints in particular that are over and underrepresented. The articles does a great job at ensuring that the different aspects of group-decision making are given the equal amounts of attention. In this way, the audience takes away a much more balances view. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I found no problems with the citations or the source link. All claims supported the article as well. 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? All references appeared to be from peer reviewed articles or experts in the field. With peer review, it can be assumed that the writing is unbiased. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? This is a general description of group-think that does included original information and history, but there are also more up to date information sprinkled throughout the article. 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? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Some outside editors questioned certain aspects's inclusion in the term "group decision making". In particular it was questioned whether dictatorship should be included in the article and it was eventually removed. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think it to be focused solely on facts with no true personal opinion or "human touch" included in the description. It feels very sterile.

Article Reviews
Article Evaluation: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I think the different subsets of group decision making are included appropriately. I thought the inclusion of group decision making at the very end of the article provided both closure and a great description of the social effects of group decision making.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is very neutral, focusing solely on the facts and confirmed effects of group decision making.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? I don't think there are any viewpoints in particular that are over and underrepresented. The articles does a great job at ensuring that the different aspects of group-decision making are given the equal amounts of attention. In this way, the audience takes away a much more balanced view. Check a few citations.

Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I found no problems with the citations or the source link. All claims supported the article as well.

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? All references appeared to be from peer-reviewed articles or experts in the field. With peer review, it can be assumed that the writing is unbiased.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? This is a general description of group-think that does include original information and history, but there are also more up to date information sprinkled throughout the article.

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? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Some outside editors questioned certain aspects' inclusion in the term "group decision making". In particular, it was questioned whether dictatorship should be included in the article and it was eventually removed. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think it to be focused solely on facts with no true personal opinion or "human touch" included in the description. It feels very sterile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbroc001 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)