User:Ayanna russell/sandbox

When evaluating an article[edit]

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Yes, after reading the article, it seems that the information found in the article is relevant.
 * As for the sources, they are not all relevant to the article.
 * Is there anything that distracted you?
 * No, not exactly.
 * Is any information out of date?
 * Yes, there is no exact date.
 * Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The first thing that caught my eye is that there is no exact date of when this event occurred.
 * What else could be improved?
 * I didn't gather an understanding of the aftermath regarding the 'chalking' event. There is also a warning on the page claiming the article may contain innapropiate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text.
 * The sources for the article are also not correct, they have no relation to the article whatsoever.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral as it is just reiterating what occurred whilst not persuading the reader to take one side or form a strong opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would say that the view point of the students is overrepresented whilst the viewpoint of a non-Trump supporter is underrepresented.
 * Check a few citations.
 * I clicked on all the citations.
 * Do the links work?
 * Yes, all of the linked citations work.
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * No, each source does not support the claims throughout the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * I believe that some of the sources are not the most reliable, that being New York Times and the Washington Post as some may find newspapers to not be reliable because they can be biased.
 * There are also sources that were added for no reason.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources?
 * I would say 50% of the information comes of newspaper articles and the over half comes from online journals and forums. For majority, yes the information is from neutral sources.
 * If biased, is that bias noted?
 * No, the bias is not noted.

After evaluating (Talk Pages)[edit]

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Right now this topic is solely represented from the 'student body voice' so it truly one gives one side. I feel the article would have more power if it opened the mind of reader's allowing for both sides to be understood. The article would then be more knowledgable as it would be filled with more information.
 * How is the article rated?
 * The article is rated at the letter S for satisfactory, standing with a 30 percent.
 * Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * No, not that I am aware of.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * My wikipedia topic does not relate to what we've talked about in class.

Wikipedia Entry
[ORGINAL ARTICLE] Chalkening

The Chalkening was a protest that occurred on university campuses across the United States in March and April 2016 in support of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Those who promoted it included Students for Trump and the Trump campaign.This protest mainly took the form of chalk writing in public areas on campus with slogans such as "Trump 2016".

Backlash to backlash
The criticism of the anti-Trump Emory students was a backlash that arose out of a perceived pattern of coddling by university administrators of certain groups of university students that hold unreasonable views on the standards of public discourse. The chalkening phenomenon has come amid heightened tensions on American university campuses surrounding the 2016 Presidential Campaign, which has sometimes included violence. Perceived microagressions, such as the chalkening, has been belittled by some commentators attempting to contrast it with world events in 2016 such as genocide and war. In mid-April 2016, DePaul University banned the use of chalk on campus sidewalks after the College Republicans organized a chalking event where students wrote pro-Trump messages.

Origin
This chalk-based protest occurred alongside an outburst of media criticism of an incident at Emory University on March 22nd, 2016. Slogans including, “Vote Trump” and “Trump 2016” were written in chalk throughout the Atlanta, Georgia campus. Those who promoted it included Students for Trump and the Trump campaign in hopes of Donald Trump winning presidency. In response, other university students retaliated with “Stop Trump, Stop Hate” signs as in means to express their concerns of safety. The protest spread rapidly, reaching a number of other universities across the United States.

'Chalkening' Inspiration
Numerous students took inspiration to chalk up their school grounds from an online Twitter account. Online college culture brand, Old Row, inspired the movement via Twitter. The tweet challenged students to submit photographs of their chalk messages. Those who sent in the best ‘Chalkening’ photo were entered to win a variety of gift prizes offered. In a matter of weeks, the “Chalkening” had reached the University of Tennessee, DePaul University, Delta State University, Dalton State College, and many more.

Aftermath
The ‘Chalkening’ bred heavy tensions across American campuses. DePaul University took action by banning chalk messages on campus grounds. This was in relation to the extreme backlash from anti-Trump supporters who expressed concerns of personal safety with chalk messages with offensive and harmful undertones. These messages included “Build The Wall”, “Stop Islam”, and “Deport Them All”. Another protest took place at the University of California against the Trump supporting messages as some students felt it went against the universities core values. The chalked messages reportedly included slander towards Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ people.