User talk:HopeDrennan/sandbox
Evaluating Sources: Julia Platt
editIs everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- This article mostly talks about her education, which should not be the main focus.
- The article does not go into much detail about her research; it dives into some statements about the salamanders and sharks she looked out, but there is most likely more out there that is not included.
- Bad grammar was distracting to me in this article.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- The article sources seem up to date (they were published in 2011).
- There is a lot that could easily be added to this article. Some ideas that I have to add to this article are: Research, Personal Life, Work, and Career
What else could be improved?
- This could be improved by eliminating some of the content gaps that are in this article. More information can be added about her research; probably about different topics.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Yes, it is neutral due to it being broad.
- There is a line in this article that states “her most notable contribution”. This can be viewed as biased and opinionated.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Some topics that are overrepresented are her schooling.
- Some topics that are underrepresented are her career and research, which as a scientist would seem to be very important.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- The first source, “Brain, Behavior, and evolution”, is also a very underdeveloped Wikipedia article.
- The second source talks a little about her, but mostly concepts about the Bay.
- The third source does not seem to relate to her at all.
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?
- The sources do not seem to be very biased at all.
- The sources that were chosen do not seem to be of great quality, and do not seem to relate much.
- I am very confident that better articles can be found.
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There are no conversations that are happening behind the scenes of this woman's article.
- Her Talk Page does not have any information on it.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article is a Stub Class Article; this makes it a good article to edit.
- This article is part of WikiProjects Woman's History Projects.
- This article is also part of WikiProject Biography.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- In class, we have not discussed Julia Platt. She is an American embryologist. Since she is a scientist, this makes sense that she does not have a lot of information about her.