User talk:MarinaMueller/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything posted seems important to the article, but there is a lot of information missing about her. The references seem to not be correctly coded and are a bit confusing.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There is not much of her current information available or anything outside of her accomplishments in science. I would like to see more of her personal life available.

What else could be improved? A lot more information can be added about her work, and there is a lot of room for improvement in adding additional sections, and there are large gaps missing from her lifetime.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article appears neutral, but there is little information even available on the article to evaluate in depth.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There do not appear to be any viewpoints under or overrepresented. However, there are little information available in general.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work, and the sources give an overview of Ruiz, similar to the article. Again, there is not much information apart from strictly dates and facts about her life.

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? Not everything is completely or properly sourced. The sources that are available though are reliable sources from mostly university publishings. There is no noticeable bias.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The only thing available is what the original author was planning to use for sources.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a stub-class and has no importance rating. It is part of two WikiProjects (Biography and Women Scientists).

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article seems decently well composed, but there is not much available in terms of Wikipedia talking. MarinaMueller (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)