User talk:TruedSoul/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you? 'I feel as though all of the subject matter was relevant, but also very basic in regards to content. Nothing distracted me but I can see why the article is rated as C Class.'

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position? 'The article was fairly neutral but I sensed a big push in the claim that migration is ever increasing based on the graphs presented.'' '''

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? 'In regards to viewpoints, the main viewpoint or reference point that was lacking in regards to readers being able to understand the claims are the missing dates. The top ten immigration countries had not date of reference for the line up which diminished the credibility of the statistic.'

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 'After checking multiple citations they all seemed to work accordingly. Although, many citations that are necessary in the article were absent in regards to the assertions that were made in regards to credibility. Unfortunately, some of the claims are too general or vague which lack quantities, dates and descriptions of who exactly is making a certain distinction.'

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? 'No, some facts actually lack appropriate references, many are reliable like The World Bank, but some seem to be from secondary sources that may be biased and that bias is absent from being noted. Also, a lot of references were used more than once in a single brief paragraph which made the information seem a little one sides. If more of the theories of migration were explained by different authors and viewpoints it would make the article stronger and more professional.'

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There a number of missing references that could be added, but there seems to be a diverse amount of sources and references ranging from the 1990's to contemporary 2000's.

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? 'Many of the conversations on the talk page revolve around out dated information, lack of contemporary migration information, and vocabulary clarification. There is even a suggestion of whether or not to add "Ice Age" migration patterns which I found interesting. There is a lot of discussion about neglected migration patterns and what content should be included and left out, in addition to encouraging a better editing approach to the format and deliverance of the information.'

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? 'The article is rated C Class due to it having some editing problems that would benefit from touch ups and addition information to make it more well-rounded. The article has been nominated to be a part of multiple WikiProjects, but to my knowledge has failed to engage in any of them.'

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? 'In class we are lead by a highly informed and credible professor while looking are different credible authors and sources. We also use both World and U.S. statistics which I believe this article lacks, such as statistics from The Department of Homeland Security and Census Bureau. The topics in this article are also very briefly touched upon, whereas in class we are encouraged and expected to read in depth and at times dense literature on theories of migration.'