User talk:Gracelorelei/sandbox
Evaluations
[edit]Spelling/Grammar
[edit]Meet Expectations
Language
[edit]Meet Expectations The information is well stated, good tone.
Organization
[edit]Meet Expectations
Coding
[edit]Meet Expectations
Validity
[edit]Meet Expectations Adequate information.
Completion
[edit]Meets Expectations This information will fit very well into the article, clear and concise.
Relevance
[edit]Meet Expectations
Sources
[edit]Exceeds Expecations There are high quality sources and they are cited correctly.
Citations
[edit]Exceeds Expectations Everything is cited properly. In good format.
References
[edit]Exceeds Expectations Present and in good format.
Evaluation by Rhiannon38 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
[edit]Spelling/Grammar
[edit]Meets expectations. There is a comma error with the word "specifically," and well known is two words.
Language
[edit]Meets expectations. Well worded.
Organization
[edit]Meets expectations. Good structure.
Coding
[edit]Meets expectations.
Validity
[edit]Exceeds expectations.
Completion
[edit]Meets expectations.
Relevance
[edit]Meets expectations. Provides useful information.
Sources
[edit]Exceeds expectations. High quality articles with relevant information.
Citations
[edit]Meets expectations. All of the links work, and have been styled and placed correctly.
References
[edit]Meets expectations. Present and in good format.
Evaluation by TheDockterisin (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
[edit]Spelling/Grammar
[edit]Meets Expectations No Errors.
Language
[edit]Meets Expectations Concise and well worded.
Organization
[edit]Meets Expectations Easy to follow.
Coding
[edit]Meets Expectations
Validity
[edit]Meets Expectations Relevant to the topic.
Completion
[edit]Meets Expectations
Relevance
[edit]Meets Expectations
Sources
[edit]Meets Expectations Valid sources.
Citations
[edit]Meets Expectations Fully cited.
References
[edit]Meets Expectations TheDockterisin (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
[edit]De wallen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Wallen
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? everything is relevant Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There should be a tourim portion added What else could be improved? I think this article needs to have a tourism aspect and better talk about sex trafficking because thats a huge part of the red light district.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I dont really see a bias but more aspects need to be covered
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? sex trafficking is under represented
Check a few citations. Do the links work? some of the links work
Does the source support the claims in the article? yes
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? it seems that everything is supported and cited correctly
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? the talk page is talking alot about how sex trafficking portions in the article should be moved to amsterdam sextrafficking page