User talk:LizRodriguez7/sandbox

Article Evaluation

1.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes.

2.Is there anything that distracted you? The fact that they kept bringing up uncommon diseases.

3.Is the article neutral? Yes, speaks of pros and cons.

4.Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.

5.Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I have seen.

6.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes, but not all.

7.Does the source support the claims in this article? Yes.

8.Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes.

9.Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? It comes from children's hospital websites and pediatrician's.

10.If biased, is that bias noted? I didn't notice any.

11.Is any information out of date? Everything seems up to date.

12.Is anything missing that could be added? More common misdiagnosis.

13.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? People just had questions relating to the article about signs and symptoms, but the S&S were stated in the article. The also talked about teething animals.

14.How is the article rated? It was rated Mid importance.

15.Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Medicine

16.How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about this in class, but I'm sure Wikipedia has more information than we would.

• Optional: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes