User:Asong8/sandbox

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Most facts are referenced with appropriate sources. The article draws its information heavily from sources authored by the United States Census Bureau, which is a credible source. A conclusion sentence of the article lacks proper citation: "This reflected the growth of Nativist movements in American society at this time, as well as combining the number and age question of both slaves and free colored individuals."

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

Most of the content of the article is relevant to the article topic, however there are instances in which the article digresses from the topic of "Race and ethnicity in the United States Census" to the American people's perception and understanding of race and ethnicity. For example, in the "Relation between ethnicity and race in census results" section, the article states that "Many residents of the United States consider race and ethnicity to be the same."

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The lead section of the article is neutral and contains basic facts: there is no bias. The remaining content of the article is written from a Neutral Point of View, however it concludes by mentioning that the American Anthropological Association's recommendations to the US Census to revise definitions of race and ethnicity were ignored by the 2000 and 2010 Census, implying that the article is in agreement with the AAA.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The bulk of the information comes from neutral sources such as the United States Census Bureau, White House, and the National Institution of Health. Few facts are derived from scholarly journals or news articles such as Scientific American and USA Today and are presented without bias.

The article also cites the American Anthropological Association and presents its viewpoint that the US Census definition of race and ethnicity is insufficient and requires amendment. Being an organization that conducts a lot of anthropology research, the AAA is likely to push for improvements in current anthropological standards and definitions.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The only viewpoint that is presented is that the US Census definition of race and ethnicity, despite an extensive history of revision, is still insufficient and requires amendment. Therefore, the viewpoint is overrepresented. There is no viewpoint presented in the article that believes that the current definition of race and ethnicity is sufficient.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

The article uses a lot of direct quotes from the sources, citing the definitions and conditions outlined by the US Census. The use of such quotes minimizes the effect of bias, however it defeats the purpose of an informative article and analysis of the topic drawing from multiple sources. In the sections of the articles that were not quoted, the paraphrasing was neutral and there was no plagiarism.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information presented is up to date since the 2010 Census is the most recent United States national census. Perhaps, the reason behind why the 2010 US Census did not take into account of the AAA's suggestion could be included.

Sensory Processing Sensitivity

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Most of the facts are referenced by reliable sources. Facts concerning medical definitions and scientific research are referenced by scholarly and unbiased journals such as Personality and Social Psychology Review and The Journal of Neuroscience. Information pertaining to the condition's history and origins of the term is cited by news articles such as Time Magazine, The Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, and San Francisco Chronicle. The article refers to WebMD, an unreliable source for health information, when listing other conditions that can be mistaken for SDS.

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

Most of the article's content is relevant to the topic. The article digresses in the Origin and Development of the Terms section and talks about the scope of Elaine Aron's published work, including the success and impact of her book, The Highly Sensitive Person. Although Aron formally identified the condition and was successful in bringing awareness to the condition, this section of the article should focus on the etiology of the condition and its name.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is biased towards Elaine and Arthur Aron's classification of SPS as a personality trait rather than a disorder. The article mentions briefly in the introduction that other researchers have classified the disease as a disorder and associated the condition with increased "responsiveness to both positive and negative influences", however does not provide much information on this viewpoint in the article.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The information comes from neutral sources. The article cites news articles such as Time Magazine, The Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, and San Francisco Chronicle which may be biased, however the information taken from these articles pertain to the condition's history and origins of the term.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Elaine and Arthur Aron's viewpoint of SPS as a personality trait rather than a disorder is overrepresented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

There is no close paraphrasing or plagiarism is in the article, although there are many direct quotes from research papers and scholarly journals. Direct quotes are used correctly, citing established definitions and clinical symptoms of SDS.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information in the article is up to date; it includes the results of neuroscience research conducted in 2015.