User:Brebarnard/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Article 1: "Feminism"

- Everything in this article seems to be relevant to the article topic as a whole. Nothing in particular distracted me, although the formatting was slightly odd in a couple of places. For example, the "first" and "second" waves of feminism in history were highlighted in blue, whereas the "third wave" was both highlighted in blue and bolded in a separate section. However, all of the information seemed to go together pretty well!

- The article seemed fairly neutral, as the concept of feminism is more of a "fact" than an "opinion," meaning that it is hard to be biased with regards to this topic.

- I thought that this article in particular was very well-rounded, focusing on a variety of aspects of feminism. The only item that may have been slightly under-represented was the topic of sexuality. All of the sections of the article seemed very in-depth, yet the section titled, "sexuality" only had two sub-categories within. From the readings we have been doing in our class, I have learned that there are actually very many aspects of sexuality that correlate to/affect feminism.

- Of the three citations that I clicked on, all of the links worked and correlated to the topics represented in the article.

- Each of the facts are indeed referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. I have previously learned that ".edu" and/or things like ".org" references are surely reliable, and of the links that I clicked on from the references section, none of them seemed to have these. However, when reading the original articles that were referenced, I saw that the information was indeed pertinent. However, a couple of the references seemed very biased towards women as a whole, and this was not noted in the "feminism" article itself.

- I did not notice that anything in particular was out of date or missing!

- The "talk" page seemed to have a lot of interesting and pertinent information posted by others! People suggested where to put certain information and also provided a lot of information regarding Celebrity and Media, which was not included in the Feminism article originally.

- This article was rated in the "GA" class, signifying that it is a "good article" and therefore quite reliable. It was not included in any WikiProjects.

- The way that Wikipedia discusses this topic is slightly different than how we have discussed feminism in class. It seems that we have focused in-depth on all of the various components of feminism, whereas this article highlights just a few important themes. The article does, however, highlight important key aspects that we have also gone over in class such as historical, political, and sexual indications. Our class seems to go more in-depth on each topic. However, the article does point out the "science" of feminism, which was very interesting to read about!

Article 2: "Sexism"

- Everything in the article is relevant to sexism. The article highlighted the definition of sexism as well as its relation to politics, women's suffrage, marriage regulations, language, etc. Interestingly, all of the topics in the article were also talked about in our textbook by Shaw and Lee.

- The article is mostly neutral. However, sexism is intended to apply to both men and women, but the article seems to focus mainly on women's oppression with regards to sexism. I personally do not think this is a bad thing given that women experience the most oppression with regards to gender ranking, but I do see how men might read the article and feel as though there was not enough attention paid to them.

- I wouldn't say that there are some viewpoints that are more or less represented than others. The article seems to be more "fact" related, so-to-speak, and does not really go over the various viewpoints on sexism. In other words, the article does not seem to have an opinionated tone.

- Not only do the citation links work, but of the ones that I clicked on, the information for the article seems to come from very reliable sources. One of the sources I clicked on had an html link ending in ".gov." This, again, is one of the signifiers that I have learned in the past that represents a reliable source.

- Each fact is referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. The ".gov" link that was embedded into the Wikipedia article that I clicked on was titled "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009." Furthermore, this reference was cited in the text of the article at a very appropriate point, as this is where the article provided facts and statistics about the "gender pay gap." The sources that I clicked on are also neutral, as they provided statistics without voicing very much opinion as a whole.

- Nothing in the article really seems to be "out of date," although I did notice that some of the referenced links/articles held some statistics from 2009. However, this may be because there has been a lack in further studies since this time.

- The "talk" page for the Sexism article had plenty of conversations going on with regards to neutrality, sexism in politics, and the definition of sexism as a whole. I thought that this talk page was much more constructive in user feedback than was the first article I looked at titled "Feminism." I especially liked that a user pointed out that there may have been a flaw in the overall neutrality, which I think that the author took to heart (as I could not find this flaw when going back through and reading). This goes to show that feedback is truly appreciated and helpful!

- This article was also rated very well, indicating that it is a good source for reference on sexism topics. It does not appear to be part of any WikiProjects as far as I can tell!

- As a whole, I thought that Wikipedia discussed this topic in great depth, and covered a lot of the main points we have been covering in class. Again, though, our class seems to dive into deeper detail with regards to some of the specific sub-topics, such as gender stereotypes, politics, language, occupational sexism, etc. While the Wikipedia article touches on all of these, our textbook has many chapters that cover the significance and implications of these things.

Article 3: "Social Inequality" (This is the article that I responded to on the "talk" page).

- Everything within the article was relevant to the main topic, although I did get distracted at one point where there was a spelling error within the second paragraph. The section regarding meritocracies was also slightly confusing to me, as I don't believe that enough background was given on this topic.

- The article does remain neutral throughout the entirety. I didn't notice anything that was biased towards a specific opinion, and I was able to read through the article a couple of times.

- I thought that the section titled "Racial and ethnic inequality" could have been a bit longer and more detailed. All of the other sections seemed pretty lengthy, with a larger emphasis on age inequality, health inequality, and economic inequality.

- All of the citation links that I clicked on worked for this article. However, one of the links took me to a page that required some type of log-in, as it appeared to be a book of some sort. Online access for this was not readily available to the public, which was slightly disappointing as I was unable to see where the information actually came from. Another one of the links took me to an outdated page that stated "the file you requested does not exist." This indicates that either some of the information is outdated, or someone has not removed the information/source from the Wikipedia page.

- Although all of the facts seem to be referenced, some of the sources were unreliable and/or outdated, as I mentioned above.

- Based on the webpage that could not be found, I believe that some of the statistics regarding the economic growth section of the article may be incorrect and/or outdated. The only thing I can think of with regards to adding more information is that I would like to have seen more about gender inequality.

- The "Talk" page for this article had some comments that brought my attention to things I had not noticed. For example, one person stated that there was some bias in that the "quotes" section of the article had bias towards social inequality. In response, the person said that they had removed these "biased" quotes, which is likely why I did not notice them! Again, this is why the "Talk" page is so helpful, as people are able to point out various flaws and give constructive feedback to help make the article a reliable source!

- This article was also rated as "good," and I do not see that it has been included in any WikiProjects.

- Wikipedia discusses the topic of social inequality in this article quite a bit differently than how we have covered the material in class. This article in particular seems to go over a lot of other various forms of social inequality; whereas our class highlights social inequalities with an emphasis on gender differences and women within society. I personally enjoy the depth that we have gone over within our class with regards to gender, economics, politics, etc. The article covered some other topics such as food and age inequalities. The "gender" section of the Social Inequality article did not seem to go very in-depth. This is the only section I would have liked to see more about! However, we do cover a lot of gender-related inequalities in class!

Brebarnard (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)