User talk:TheKovacsCat

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, TheKovacsCat, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.We're so glad you're here! Matthewvetter (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation[edit]

Article About: Regina Spektor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Spektor

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? - I believe so, yes.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Yes the article covers Regina's information in a semi biographical way from her life,to her music, even philanthropy and nothing that strays from her.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - Yes the article keeps a fairly neutral tone throughout but does appear to occasionally use positive words to describe her, so I think that counts as a little biased towards her. All of the information is presented in a pretty factual way.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that biased noted? -I can't tell if all of the sources are all unbiased but most come from recordings of radio interviews and reviews of her work in magazines, but for the most part they appear to have a parsing tone towards Regina, so no they're not unbiased sources and no they are not noted as such.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -If by viewpoints we mean specific catagories regarding her, then I would say they're all pretty equally represented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? - as the nature of these sources are pretty biased, it's easy for me to tell that there is no plagiarism as the authors of this article come off as way less biased than the 3 articles I looked at.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? -Most of the info appears to be pretty up to date with me!