User:Tnotoes/sandbox

Article Evaluation

The Digital Divide article never veered from the issue at hand. Each section in the article was related to the main point. The article is talking about the Digital Divide, and from that title we can tell that this might be a biased article. It could be for technology or against it. The author or authors did a good job of mentioning both sides of the article, anyway. Nothing seemed overstated, but some sections were smaller than others. It didn't distract me, that might have been the only information found. All of the links work, although I did not check all. All of the citations checked, also worked. The references checked were from journal articles and other websites. Most information was from recent articles and websites but there were a few references from 20+ years ago. These references weren't out-of-date, just older information that was relevant to the topic at hand. The article has been peer reviewed and the author has done a good job of updating the article when they can. They are also working on problems that others have stated. This article is a part of 5 WikiProjects. Two of them have the rating "start-class" and the other two "c-class". In our class we talk more about examples of the digital divide while this was more informative of the history and surveys.

The Digital Divide in Canada article was shorter than the other. The information had some parts left out but also had some other information that was not stated in the first article. The one thing that stood out was the end of the page "Opposing Views". This was the only area dedicated to this, and it should have been all though out the article. Only two references were used in this short section. All of the links clicked worked. All of the information used and referenced were from newer articles and websites. This article is only a part of one WikiProject and it was rated "c-class". We don't talk much about Canada's divide.