User:Cas461/sandbox

Final Draft of contributions to Wikipedia Page
- add production section into the contents description with link (eventually)

Production
Assisted by entertainment company Miramax, project creator Catherine Hand worked behind the scenes alongside TV producer Norman Lear to bring her vision to life. The production of the film began in 2001 with the initial plan to create a two-part miniseries that would total 4 hours in duration. However, the film was later cut down into a singular, three-hour program. While this made-for-tv film was initially intended to be released in the United States in 2002, this release was delayed until 2004.

The audience is provided with an explanation of tesseract through Mrs. Whatsit, who describes it as a "wrinkle in time" that allows one to travel across the universe. Transforming such abstracts into television images was one of the many hurdles for the makers of the movie, but production issues regarding this portrayal were overcome by the use of special effects.

Other difficulties with the filming primarily concerned the way in which the novel was written because L'Engle's focus on the internal feelings and thoughts of the characters, noted Suzanne Macneille of The New York Times. Macneille recognized that, like with any film adaptation of a novel, the story adaptation could result in controversies because protective readers of the original film may look down upon any variation in plot.

Reception
A Wrinkle in Time received generally negative reviews from film critics. In a Q&A with MSNBC/Newsweek Entertainment reporter Melinda Henneberger, author L'Engle said of the film "I have glimpsed it... I expected it to be bad, and it is."[2]

A Wrinkle in Time received mixed reviews from film critics and journalists alike. Sharon Eberson, journalist for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette described it as a "a most faithful adaptation." In particular, Eberson praised the interpretation of the "Wookie-like beasts" from the planet Ixchel. People Magazine’s Terry Kelleher credited the film's inventive designing of the 1984 version of the dark planet (Camazotz). However, Kelleher hinted at a "preachy" ending.

As Diane Ortiz from The University Wire described it, the novel’s first film adaptation was a "dud", emphasizing its lack of substantial acting and special effects. In her same article, Eberson admitted to the existence of inadequacy in the special effects and acknowledged how they did not meet the hopes of the creators nor the viewers. Nick Mangione, from The Geek Magazine, suggested that many of the problems associated with the film relate to the creator’s decision to dumb-down the concepts from the novel. Mangione pointed out that in her novel, L'Engle trusted her audience and knew they would be able to understand the complex thoughts of the characters. However, he believes that the film version shows no trust in the audience and spends the entire time simplifying everything and neglecting any of the more complex ideas. Mangione further stated, “It’s almost impressive how they managed to take every major location and plot beat from the novel and get absolutely none of it right."

In a Q&A with MSNBC/Newsweek Entertainment reporter Melinda Henneberger, Madeleine L'Engle, author of the original novel said, "I have glimpsed it... I expected it to be bad, and it is."[2]

The film received a rating of 42% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Release
The original 2001 production, a mini-series, was released in Canada, Australia, and Germany. A Wrinkle in Time was at one point intended to air on The Wonderful World of Disney for two nights in February 2002. It was postponed, however, rescheduled for February 2003, postponed again, cut to 128 minutes, and aired in a single three-hour block on ABC May 10, 2004.[1]

The newly edited version of the film premiered at the Toronto Children's Film Festival, where it won the festival's 2003 Best Feature Film Award.[3]

The original adaptation also came with a teacher's guide that included student-directed questions about the film. An example of some of these questions are "Why does Meg Murray think that she is stupid?", "How would you rate Meg’s intelligence level?”, and “Why does Meg think that no one likes her?"

Home media
A Wrinkle in Time was released on VHS and DVD November 16, 2004 by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. The special features included deleted scenes, a "behind the scenes" segment, and a "very rare" interview with Madeleine L'Engle who discusses the novel.[4]

The home video rights to the film have since been obtained by Echo Bridge Home Entertainment, which has released the title both as a standalone DVD and as part of several family film bundles.

This film version of A Wrinkle in Time can be rented on Amazon for $1.99.

Update Bibliography:

Draft One of contributions to Wikipedia page
Aaryn's Peer Review:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hFjuHEPRBlEwbCOpLuZ0fBxibKs7W-fMoZIPCbanE1c/edit?usp=sharing

Release/Production: School Library Journal


 * Assisted by entertainment company Miramax, project creator Catherine Hand worked behind the scenes alongside TV producer Normal Lear to bring her vision to life.
 * The production of the film began in 2001 with the initial plan to create a two-part miniseries that would total 4 hours in duration. However, the film was later cut down into a singular, three-hour program.
 * While this made-for-tv film was initially intended to be released in 2002, its release was delayed until 2004.

Tesseract (theme):


 * Credo Reference: "the mathematical concept of a 'wrinkle' in time and space."

Nick Mangione (reception):


 * "It’s almost impressive how they managed to take every major location and plot beat from the novel and get absolutely none of it right."
 * Nick Mangione, from the Geek, suggested that many of the problems associated with the film relate to the creator’s decision to dumb-down the concepts from the novel. Mangione pointed out that in her novel, L’Engle trusted her audience and knew they would be able to understand the complex thoughts of the characters. However, he believes that the film version shows no trust in the audience and spends the entire time simplifying everything and neglecting any of the more complex ideas.

Suzanne MacNeille (reception, background information on production):


 * The audience is provided with an explanation of tesseract through Mrs. Whatsit, who describes it as a “wrinkle in time” that allows one travel across the universe.
 * transforming such abstracts into television images was one of the manyy hurdles for the makers of the movie
 * The original 2001 production, a mini series, was released in Canada, Australia, and Germany.
 * In 2003, it was reshot and edited to be released as a made-for-television film in the United States.
 * Difficulties with the filming had a lot to do with the way the novel was written because of how the novel focuses on the internal feelings and thoughts of the characters, noted Suzanna Macneille of the New York Times.
 * One concern for the production regarded the portrayal of the tesseract, but issues with this concept were overcome by special effects.
 * Macneille recognized that, like with any film adaptation of a novel, the story adaptation could result in controversies because protective readers of the original film may look down upon any variation in plot.

Sharon Eberson (reception, background information)


 * Eberson from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette described it as a “a most faithful adaptation.”
 * The original adaptation also came for a teacher’s guide that included student-directed questions about the film. An example of some of these questions are “Why does Meg Murray think that she is stupid?”, “How would you rate Meg’s intelligence level?”, and “Why does Meg think that no one likes her?”
 * Eberson admitted to the existence of inadequacy in the special effects and acknowledged how they did not meet the hopes of the creators nor the viewers. Despite this slight deficit, she still credited them as “pretty well done”, and praised the interpreations of the Wookiee-like beasts from the planet Ixchel.
 * The 2003 film version of “A Wrinkle in Time” can be rented on Amazon for $1.99.

Diane Ortiz (reception):


 * As Diane Ortiz from The University Wire described it, the novel’s first film adaptation this was a “dud”, emphasizing its lack of substantial acting and special effects.

Terry Kelleher (reception):


 * Terry Kelleher, journalist from People Magazine, credited the film’s inventive designing of a 1984 version of the dark planet (Camazotz) but also hinted at a “preachy” ending.
 * Kelleher described his own experience in watching the film. He did so alongside two ten-year-olds, stating that one recognized many contrasts in comparison to the original novel. However, he also pointed at that they were both captivated by the film.

Bibliography of sources for editing A Wrinkle in Time (2003 film) article
References

Coray, A. (2004, Credo. Commonweal, 131, 20. Retrieved from http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&res_id=xri:ilcs-us&rft_id=xri:ilcs:rec:abell:R01719141

Kelleher, T. (2004). A wrinkle in time (TV program). People, 61(19), 38. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=aph&AN=13089904&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Macneille, S. (2004, May 9,). Coming of age: Mostly a matter of time. The New York Times Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/92710402

Mangione, N. (2018, March 10,). Let's remember, and try to forget, that other wrinkle in time movie.Geek Retrieved from https://www.geek.com/television/lets-remember-and-try-to-forget-that-other-wrinkle-in-time-movie-1733388/

Ortiz, D. (2018, Mar 11,). Review: Disney's "A wrinkle in time" redeems itself on-screen. UWIRE Text

Sharon Eberson. (2018, Mar 7,). Please handle with care fan anxieties flare with 'a wrinkle in time' adaptation. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Retrieved from https://global.factiva.com/en/du/article.asp?accessionno=PPGZ000020180307ee370001e

A 'wrinkle' in primetime. (2001). School Library Journal, 47(7), 19. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=aph&AN=4746583&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Evaluation of "Persepolis (comics)"
- This article is well written and well balanced. It provides the necessary information to readers while remaining concise.

- While the article includes two novels, it does not come off as overly-long, especially in the summary.

- It remains neutral throughout.

- Each claim and viewpoint is represented and supported by sources.

- The list of citations and references is extensive.

- The links to each reference source work and the sources adequately represent the claims in which they are connected to.

- There is a lot of talk on the talk page, which I was expecting as Persepolis is a very popular novel and has been worked on by many editors.

- In one instance, there is a discussion over whether Persepolis can be considered a graphic novel. I found this interesting because in characterizing the book overall I would not think there would be an issue in classifying it as a graphic novel.

- The article follows the guidelines and structure encouraged by Wikipedia. However, I found the character list somewhat interruptive, and a character list is also not a part of the recommended structure. It might be better to make it more concise or to move it so that it precedes the summary. For readers who have not read the novel, it could be helpful for them to have a general grasp of the characters before attempting to know what happens in the novel.

- Something that the article can improve on is clarifying the genre of the article and sticking to one, instead of using many different phrases to classify the novel.

- In the Reception section, I thought improvements could be made in the structuring of the sentences. The first sentence introduces the idea that the article has been highly received but also has received criticism. It then proceeds to go into detail about public criticism of the novel, and discusses the honors at the end. It might be more cohesive if the honors/awards are introduced before going into detail about certain criticisms that some have had over the novel.

- I like the parallel covers of the each book in the infobox. It usuals visuals that stand out to allow readers to immediately recognize that the article will be discussing not one but two novels.

Evaluation of Treaty Rights
Everything that is included in this article seems relevant, but there could definitely be more to this article. It really only has two sections: a description section and a violations section. As I am not an expert on the topic of treaty rights, I do not know enough to add factual information about cases in which these rights have been violated. However, I do feel like in reality this section could be much longer. There has to be more than 4 significant cases in which violations occurred. This article remains relatively neutral in spite of it surrounding a very controversial topic. There seem to be no claims that point towards one side, and each significant viewpoint is represented clearly and thoroughly. The first link I clicked on didn't work (http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028602/1100100028603). This is supposed to direct readers to a database from the Government of Canada about Treaty Rights, yet when the link is selected it says that there is an error and that the page did not exist. Every other citation link seems to work and act as substantial evidence for the facts used in the article. Many of these sources are references to examples of actual treaties, which I view as neutral, credible sources. On the talk page, there are no conversations going on behind the scenes by editors on how to better represent this topic. I found this interesting because treaty rights is a pretty general term and topic that comes up often in the discussion of indigenous people and the controversies surrounding them in America today. Does the lack of conversation about this topic mean that this article does not need any improvement? While I do think that this is a good article, it is very short. There can definitely be more added about the history of treaties and how they have been interpreted throughout the years by the United States government. This article is rated "stub-class", which falls below the Start level. I had a hard time finding a definition of stub-class. What does this mean?

Evaluation of "The Kite Runner"
Content:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Everything in the article seems very relevant and important in reference to the book itself. Nothing was particularly distracting, but the article is pretty lengthy, which can sometimes turn readers away if they are looking for quick, easy information.

- There is a section titled "Other" that provides extra information that isn't entirely necessary in understanding the novel.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

- The section titled "Controversies" is slightly out of date because he most recent source cited in this section is from 2013. While those controversies may still exist, over time they might also change as world views and opinions change.

What else could be improved?

- The article is actually very elaborate. One thing I would maybe improve on is providing more of a background history on the time in which this book was written in.

Tone:

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- The article seems to be neutral overall. Even when the article discusses the controversies, there does not seem to be an bias by authors.

- However, there are no counterarguments provided to the criticisms on the novel by people (something I might consider adding)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- The article talks a lot about how the rape scene resulted in criticisms of the actors who portrayed the scene, and the significance of the rape and why the scene is important in a controversial sense is not talked about as much.

Evaluation of A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film)
The article on the 2018 film adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time follows the same structural sequence as given in the handout on how to structure an article that discusses a film. In certain sections, such as Production and Reception, they are broken into subsections that discuss specifics topics connecting to the overall section. I actually think that this page is pretty well written and edited. Each section follows the criteria in the handout, and at the same time it does not make one section seem more important than another. Previously, I have never thought about the significance of the infobox in the top right corner. But here, particularly in this article, it acts as a quick source to the more frequently asked questions. It summarizes everything that is further discussed throughout the article by providing the main facts about the movie, which is helpful in easily accessing simple information. I've never recognized the importance of an infobox before, but I realize now how helpful it is. When I think about the times I have searched things on Wikipedia, especially to find factual answers, I have often looked towards the infobox for answers. A question that I have is what can be classified as appropriate to be included in the infobox? What specific criteria must the infobox fulfill and what must it avoid including?

Evaluation of "Drama (graphic novel)"
Summary:

- Introduces Greg as a very broad character, until last paragraph

- She has been a consistent member of the stage crew, she's known in school for being a set designer

- "which allows Callie to recognize their talent" is an odd sentence, could be improved

- more information on characters (connection between Greg and Matt, Liz, Bonnie)

- Matt's confrontation (emphasize that there was no explanation)

- there seems to be a range in the level of description that is not necessarily focusing on the more important scenes

- when Jesse shares a kiss with West, it might be important to just add that the audience applauses/receives it well

- last paragraph could be centralized more around one focus, more on Callie?

General layout of the graphic novel:

- Exposition: Callie and Greg, basic knowledge around the upcoming play with Callie as the set designer

- Rising action: becoming friends with Jesse and Justin, Justin coming out to Callie, Callie developing a crush on Jesse

- Climax: Play itself, Jesse stepping in for Bonnie, the whole drama with Bonnie as a whole

- Falling action: The dance, Jesse and Callie's fight, her interaction with Greg

- Resolution: reconciliation with both Jesse and Liz, and discovery of Matt's feelings

Evaluation of "Olive's Ocean"
Olive's Ocean

Content:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- The article is very short. All that is provided is information on the publication/author of the book as well as a summary.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved?

- There is definitely more information that could be added. There is only one sentence about the novel being included as one of the ALA's most banned books. This could be elaborated on in a controversies section.

- There should be a themes section as well as a critical reception section.

- There is also little information provided about the characters, which makes the plot difficult to understand.

Tone:

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- The article is neutral and there are no claims that appear biased. This is most likely because the article fails to include a critical reception section in which readers can see how the book was perceived by different people and what opinions they have on the novel.

Sources:

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- There are only two citations. The first citation does not work. It sends the reader to the Detroit News home page.

- A question to ask since there are so few citations is is if the author(s) of this article citing all of their sources fully/adequately.

- One of the links supports the claim that book was characterized as a banned book. However, the article that is linked does a better job than the Wikipedia article does in explaining why the novel may have been banned.

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?

- One of the references no longer exists, so I added a "citation needed" edit.

- The other source seems reliable and the author of the article references and cites other sources. It is not biased but discusses reasons why the book has been banned.

Talk Page:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

- There is one discussion over the picture used on the novel's page and whether it is being used fairly/legally.

- Another person discussed the existence of many grammar mistakes.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

- The article is rated "Stub-class"

- It is a part of WikiProject Novels, but it is of low importance.

Evaluation of "The Kite Runner"
Content:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Everything in the article seems very relevant and important in reference to the book itself. Nothing was particularly distracting, but the article is pretty lengthy, which can sometimes turn readers away if they are looking for quick, easy information.

- There is a section titled "Other" that provides extra information that isn't entirely necessary in understanding the novel.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

- The section titled "Controversies" is slightly out of date because he most recent source cited in this section is from 2013. While those controversies may still exist, over time they might also change as world views and opinions change.

What else could be improved?

- The article is actually very elaborate. One thing I would maybe improve on is providing more of a background history on the time in which this book was written in.

Tone:

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- The article seems to be neutral overall. Even when the article discusses the controversies, there does not seem to be an bias by authors.

- However, there are no counterarguments provided to the criticisms on the novel by people (something I might consider adding)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- The article talks a lot about how the rape scene resulted in criticisms of the actors who portrayed the scene, and the significance of the rape and why the scene is important in a controversial sense is not talked about as much.

Sources:

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- Yes, the links do work.

- They do support the claims 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?

- There are many references to interviews with the author himself, which I view as a reliable source.

- The author's viewpoint could be considered biased, but it is noted.

- In the section "Characters", the references seem somewhat inconsistent with the information.

Talk page:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

- There is a conversation over whether the section on characters spoils it for readers or provides false information.

- Overall, there is talk about the article spoiling too much. But don't readers come to this article to find out about the details of the novel?

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

- The article is rated GA (Good Article)

- It is a part of two WikiProjects: WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Afghanistan

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

- We haven't discussed this particular novel in class, but the general controversies that I think of when I think of this novel are similar to the one's discussed on the page.

- The reasons for why it is banned go along with what I assumed