Article Critique: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Not every fact is referenced with a reliable source. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant and I did not find anything about the page distracting. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article does not seem biased in any way. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The two sources presented do not some biased in any way. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints in this article don't seem overrepresented. Umlaut needs it's own section, with linguistic examples, as I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The links work and there may be some close paraphrasing. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? If the information is correct, then the date doesn't mean a thing. More linguistic examples of introflection could be used.
Phillipvl (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Phillip van Leeuwen. And don't hesitate to contact me or our one of our Content Experts.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)