•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Most of the facts are represented with a source or have some sort of reference. •Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Nothing was distracting at all, I found all of the information to be interesting. •Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The page only discusses what collaborative leadership is, there is not much of another side to argue. •Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? My group and I found that the Harvard Business Review seems to be neutral. •If biased, is that bias noted? Not biased at all. •Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint that might be a little underrepresented is the point of example. It is clearly represented under characteristics and definition, but an example of collaborative leadership might be a good point to add into the Wikipedia page itself. •Check a few citations. Do the links work? Almost all of the links work except for the red ones. •Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? There is none of this in the article. •Is any information out of date? All of the information seems to be a broad collaboration of old information and new information. •Is anything missing that could be added? Not at the moment.
Start a discussion about improving the User:Xnm2/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Xnm2/sandbox" page.
