User talk:Talwar1/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Three Questions/Article Evaluation 1) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? There are only two referenced articles that are conventionally reliable in that they hail from organization websites. The remaining reference is from an news website that is not reputable.   Some of the facts that are presented in the article are missing citations and have notes embedded in them that state that they require clarification and extra citations.  As a whole, the article is poorly cited and lacks appropriate references.

2) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article is relevant to Roseanne Allen's life, however the structure of the article page itself, compounded with the poor syntax and general flow, is distracting in that it makes it difficult to glean any vital information from the article. It reads rather like a jumble of bullet points than it does a cohesive biography, and it makes it hard for a layperson to want to read it.

3) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? While it does mention next to her name that Roseanne Allen has passed, it does not mention in the body of the article that she has and it does not mention how she passed. That needs to be updated.  What could be added are more subheadings for easier flow, more information regarding her Olympic career, more information about how herself and Shirley and Sharon Firth were related (i.e., how they were recruited for the Olympics together), and some information regarding her personal life.

Talwar1 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)