User talk:BrodyKRS/sandbox

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant and flows coherently.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

    There is the use of the word Severe twice in the page, while I agree that it is severe, the use of the word is not neutral and the sentences still function without it. 

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

   No, it gave me, someone without knowledge an understanding of the event and its consequences.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

  The sandbox doesn't have the links but Brody has put them in on the page, link #2 is broken and needs to be fixed.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

   Yes, the information is supported and the sources are legal documents.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? The information is on a court date from 9 years ago, unless any remediation has happened to the case it is up to date.

     ChaseGG (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

~Looks fantastic Brody, you've reminded me of all the work I need to do on my page. Just get those citations in there and you're sitting pretty! ChaseGG (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

~Looks good, every point is hit and the point is very clear. Just add the institutions such as the "healing lodges" and other that have been put into place as a result of the case. But very well written. Phoenix.K1918 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Phoenix.K1918 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)