User:130.132.173.111/sandbox

Public Health Article:
-When reading the first article I felt that there was not that many distracting lines or phrases that would in fact confuse a reader. However, the last line I did find somewhat odd or misplaced when looking at the overall grand scheme of what the first part of the article was talking about. The ending lines stated delved into the issue of the disparities of public health between developed and developing countries. It was peculiar timing to bring up this issue. The majority of the writing was designated to the neutral definitions of public health-- describing what practices that public health combines as well as discussing the types of workers that go into the field of public health or work together in that given industry. To then scratch the surface of a debate that has many complexities when it comes to gaps in public health between developed and developing countries was irresponsible and lacked the depth that should've followed with such a claim. When checking citations, also seemed to be accurate and had the necessary references to bring credibility to the article as a whole. When it comes to adding anything, it would simply be a further discussion on the gap of public health development between countries to complete the thought in my opinion or take out that sentence as a whole and discuss it at another point. When looking at the Talk Page, there was no real disagreement in terms of what was presented in the article, solely was it based on the concept of a possible misplacement of a banner. One other thing that is important to note is the fact that there is no use of personal anecdote or argumentative tones throughout the writing, something that I feel in class we do heavily-- we insert our own bias sometimes when speaking on an issue rather than simply giving out the facts of the argument; at least when it pertains to possible historical crises and our thoughts on them.

Sugar Substitutes:
-This article as the one mentioned above also was able to provide a very neutral tone on the topics at hand when it came to artificial sweeteners. However, when viewing the talk page, it was interesting to see that some of their initial statements on the effects of artificial sweeteners were not cited and it was important to make that this was done in order to make sure that the claims were not baseless to say the least. Before this correction was made, you could say that there was some bias in terms of the reader believing that these claims were of the authors own judgement with no references or evidence to support them as a whole. There were no statements that deemed as distracting in my opinion and the topic overall was presented in a neutral tone. In addition, the links to the information that is cited do in fact work.

Vietnams Tuberculosis:
-As stated previously, this article was not developed in any shape or form and had no actual backbone to stand on with the mere sentences that were provided.

- The first article I read about discussed SARS. When going into the writing, I really wanted to observe how the author talked about the disease as well as the efforts of countries like China and their relief effort. The tone of the article began as very neutral. The author discussed in the first part the simple definition of the disease and some of its microbial components, also stating known preventative majors outlined by the World Health Organization. I appreciated a citation of that acronym as well as for the word fomites. When discussing Chinese government efforts, there seemed to be causation that shouldn't have been made-- drawing conclusions that "lack of transparency" or "lack of openness"(CNN as source) resulted in delays for cures or solutions in the epidemic. Unless stated in a document with a source, this correlation shouldn't be drawn. When viewing the talk page, the article was given the rating of being featured, which was expected. However, many critics stated that the author did not fully close the story by not providing a thorough analysis of how the epidemic concluded and inappropriate uses of citations. Overall, the writing was strong but the wording of many of the sentences took away the aspect of these being facts and put them in the category of opinions in some cases. The second article that I read discussed the Cipollone Cancer Trial. The tone of the writing stayed neutral overall. One thing that did distract me was a line in the background section that to the extent called Rose Cipollone's interpretation that tobacco companies wouldn't personally harm their customers as misguided. This is my opinion presents a bias or at least an injection of personal analysis into the writing that did not have to be there. Continuing through the reading, I didn't see any more instances like this. When going to its talk page, the article was rated on the start scale, meaning that it was incomplete and more work had to be done, which was surprising to me as I thought it went in depth. The only possible answer for this could've been the lack of detail presented in the court cases. Other than this there were no other critics of the article. For both wikipedia articles the citations did work when I tried clicking on them and I was able to spot references for different factual arguments.

Content Gap?:
~ A content gap is something in which a wikipedia article or simply any writing is missing a piece of analysis or context to an issue that is vital to a reader understanding and receiving a holistic idea of an issue. A content gap can be easily identified when a writing tends to lean heavily one way without the opposing side getting as nearly as much coverage necessary or there seems to be skips in the piece in which possible historical events or analysis are left out or even never talked about in the writing. Content gaps can easily arise in two ways in my opinion: 1) the person writing the article is heavily biased in their thoughts towards the issue being written about in the writing. When there is a bias in the mind of the writer, their analysis on the topic will be skewed due to the fact that in their eyes, a balanced view on an issue is really leaning towards one thought process. 2) the sources for which the topic is being researched or one sided. While the writer may have no biased, it is important that just as one puts skill into writing, it is important to put skill into searching for sources as well. If the sources are not holistic or unbiased, then the writing consequently, in no fault of the writer, will also not be unbiased. To be unbiased on wikipedia means that the author has what is called a neutral point of view, meaning that in their writing they are not trying to persuade the reader, they are not sharing personal anecdotes, and they are not putting their own touch of personal analysis in the writing. In terms of aligning with my knowledge of what it means to be unbiased, I was not aware of the rule of not allowing your own analysis to be in the writing, thinking that this was something independent of the normal rules of bias. Now understanding that, I will make note of it.