User:Bjdrechs/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Bjdrechs. 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. |
Article Evaluation of Things Fall Apart:
[edit]Article Evaluation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart.
- Mostly everything in the article is relevant to its topic. However, two sections presented aren’t entirely necessary in my opinion. The first being the “Novel’s title”, which while relevant, is not particularly important enough to warrant its own section. Incorporating this into a more broad section would be better. “Language Choice” is the second section that I feel would be better represented in a different article entirely. Since the section details Achebe and all his novels, it would be better served in the “Chinua Achebe” Wikipedia article.
- The article appears to be neutral in all respects. However, Wikipedia states "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (November 2014)".
- Viewpoints have a mostly balanced representation. The background section could use a little more detail possibly. However, Wikipedia states, "This article possibly contains original research. (December 2014)".
- Two of the Footnote citations come up as an error. All external links work properly. From looking over each of the links, I have concluded they are relevant and support the claims in the article.
- Each fact is referenced with reliable sources. Some of the external links are not as reliable such as "GradeSaver". Information seems to be up to date. As stated before more information regarding the background history of the novel's setting can be more elaborated upon.
- The Talk page was last active March 2012. It seemed to be critical towards the article being "badly written", adding more vital sections, and correcting factual mistakes. Some of these issues seem to be corrected since then.