User:Gzablocki01

Article Evaluation:

Watergate scandal

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Yes, I feel everything is very well detailed and clearly written in the article. It covers all the bases in terms of what went down throughout the Watergate scandal as well as how it effected the nation. Nothing throughout the piece distracted me from the essence of the Watergate scandal.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I feel that it is very much so a factual article. Each sentence is stated in a way that tells the reader what happened without trying to be biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I feel that the facts of what happened with the Watergate scandal were very well addressed but I wish the spoke more on the effects of the Watergate scandal on a societal level. We learned in class that the Watergate scandal was really the tipping point for many Americans to turn away from the government, yet, how this event effected the people was not discussed in the article.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • They do! That's very cool and easy to access. I feel the sources do support the claims being made in the article.
• 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?
  • Yes, each fact is referenced with the appropriate and reliable source. They have numerous sources however, many of them seem to have a liberal stance. For example, they have a few sources from Time magazine as well as The Washington Post. Even though the sources are a bit biased, I don't see this effecting their writing.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Many of their sources are a bit older but that is because the Watergate scandal happened in the 70's. Maybe they would be able to add more up to date sources on the long term effects the Watergate scandal left on the nation and government.
• 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?
  • At this point in time, it seems that the individuals reviewing the piece are looking at changing the title of the piece from "Watergate scandal" to just "Watergate". Some individuals in the talk group feel that Watergate is common knowledge and therefore does not need to be titled as "Watergate scandal". Others argue that Watergate is not common knowledge and thus the title should remain "Watergate scandal" so that there is no confusion among viewers.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'
  • This article is rated as B-Class for WikiProjects United States, U.S. History, Crime, Journalism, Past Political Scandals and Controversies.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • The Wiki page is definitely more fact oriented. There is not much room for discussion on the exact events, the article feels more like "it is what it is".

References

{{reflist}}

Added Citation in Citation Hunt:

Benzoic acid is produced commercially by partial oxidation of toluene with oxygen. The process is catalyzed by cobalt or manganese naphthenates. The process uses abundant materials, and proceeds in high yield.

Sources: (Norma Meras Swenson)

https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/history/obos-founders/norma-swenson/

About Us:

https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/about/

Other:

http://www.asaging.org/blog/keeping-fight-conversation-our-bodies-ourselves-co-founder-norma-swenson

https://normamswenson.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/2/4/30246467/norma_swenson.bio.long.2017.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/health/they-talked-and-talked-and-then-wrote-a-classic.html