User talk:Racheldeible/Evaluate an Article

Disease in Imperial Rome I chose this source to evaluate because it is the article I am choosing to edit and improve

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? yes Is there anything that distracted you? no

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? no Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations? no What else could be improved? More information on certain topics and more catergories Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? the article is neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes the links work and are related to 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? All sources seem reliable and there is no clear bias.

Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications? Yes the sources seem to come from people with a wide range of backgrounds

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? not any How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? no it is not a part of any WikiProjects How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not talked about this topic yet