User:Abineaga.m/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Abineaga.m. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Wikipedia Article: Iron Ore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore)
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Yes, everything in the article was relevant to the article topic, there was nothing that distracted me from the main information about the Iron ores. There was information about other elements in the smelting’s subtopic, however all the information given about the other elements were given in context to iron or iron ores.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No, the article is heavily neutral, there are no statements in the article that suggest a bias or there are no statements that interpret why something may be.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
I think that there should be more information or a separate section on where iron ores are found and when they were first discovered or mined in these areas.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The first citation is supposed to be a link to a Financial times article, however the article does not exist anymore. The fifth citation is a credible citation with a proper academic paper reference. The information that was cited was about iron ores and how they can form in volcanic solidified magma in certain regions and the journal that was cited had relevant information.
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?
No, the largest problem with this article is that overall there are only 20 citations, which is significantly low for a long article. Furthermore, majority of the information is not common knowledge and consists only of factual information, hence there must be a reference/citation for each sentence but there is not.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? No, the information is not out of date and as mentioned before, I think that there could be more information on locations of iron ores, when they were discovered and when they were mined.
Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is some conversation about some errors in the information that was posted, however this information has been removed and the editor that has removed the information has explained why they removed it.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, it is part of the Wikiproject Mining and Geology and it is rated as C-class high importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not yet talked about iron ores in class.