User:Chase Jablon/sandbox

Evaluating content
All article content appears to be relevant with biography, awards, publications, activism, and controversy related to her. There are several "citation needed" marks tied to the article needing constant update since it is a living person.

Review the lead section
The lead paragraph gives a brief overview of Menchú with several of her largest accomplishments.

Evaluating tone
The tone is definitely neutral, not obvious of any bias or motivation. The view points are nicely balanced with an entire section dedicated to controversy to off-set any unintentional bias towards representing her just for the goods she has done.

Evaluating sources
Youtube video on the 22nd source did not work and a few have missing titles. Citations are needed, no bias is detectable, but many sources are from hispanic news networks. Signal phrases are widely used.

Check talk page
The talk page consists of a lot of fact-checking, mostly pre-2009 so it appears the issues are resolved. There's a lot of discussion about bias and misinformation.

The article has a C-class rating for WikiProjects Biography, Guatemala, Women's History, Indigenous people of the Americas, and Women writes, with high importance in Women's History and Guatemala.

Wikipedia has similar discussions to ours in class on the talk page, but there's a lot more sourcing and all the ideas are laid out with backing. It's a very interesting way to see debate. The overall article is very toneless, in Menchú's representation in Rethinking Columbus, she was represented as a modern hero, a bias statement by itself.

Lead section
The lead section was a bit long, it did summarize much of the article but talked a little too much about structure, which could be more included in analysis or other. It only lends to reception when talking about the awards that are won, without giving much detail into the article being incorporated int curriculum or being a prime example of Canadian literature.

Background
The section that deals with the bulk inspiration of the book is the subsection "Historical context" under "Genre classification." It is described as finding inspiration from the sentiments of the religious right in the 80's of a growing number of women in power. Additionally, she finds great inspiration from puritan settlements. This section has a lot of sourcing, and draws on several of Atwood's direct comments on how The Handmaid's Tale was written. Much of the environmental, infertility, and other health issues were in response to diseases like HIV and radiation.

Summary
The summary section is right after the lead, it is mostly synopsis, but does add minor details like POV. It does add some analysis, particularly regarding the biblical society and the ending critiquing Professor Peixoto about his misogynistic nature. This should be in an analysis section over summary.

Genre
The genre section goes into detail on how she describes how the book is more accurately "speculative fiction," while stating that both words are interchangeable at times. The article delves into the fact that her book is more accurately speculative fiction as it has mainly realistic elements. The bulk of this section is quotes and sourced commentary with no non-cited opinion.

Analysis
There's no direct analysis section, it is spread throughout the piece. There is analysis on Peixoto as previously stated, in the synopsis, there's some analysis in the reception in regards to her book being a source of "white feminism." Additionally, language is analyzed in the character section, especially the part about Scrabble and how this privilege of playing reflects a huge change from the previous society. Most of these analysis points are sourced from peers, but there is no signal phrase in the language section or the synopsis which is very troubling. There is multiple sourcing on her use of language, showing a build of ideas.

Publication
The book was published in 1985 by McClelland and Stewart in Canada (city is not shown). Most of this publishing information is found in the picture beside the lead section.

Reception
The reviews are generally positive and collect in the section entitled "critical reception," the New York Times, The Women's Review of Books, and other journals are cited that give their reception and interpretations of the book. There is not much negative criticism with the exception of the "Race" subsection. There's also an "Academic reception" section, which in detail talks about how it got involved in classrooms, it also talks about negative criticism, particularly in regard to negative response from religious communities.

Others
The article is not organized in this traditional format so it is hard to tell what is considered an "other" section. It does however have a section on "in other media" as The Handmaid's Tale has been depicted many times in popular culture.

Infobox
Provides picture cover and much of the book's publishing information.

Where I would put Rule and Merriman
Likely in the "race" and "feminist reading" sections as these talk about white feminism and highlight Atwood's motives and lack of mention of the african american experience despite using material related to their history.

Fun Home
The article has distinct sections: Plot, artwork, publications and receptions, and musical adaptations. Themes and allusions could be put into a separate analysis section, though. Length is very good considering the size of the book, and the general tone is very neutral. There is a section dealing with the banning of the book and all opinions are citations. There are ample pictures to describe plot, author, and artwork, which is essential as the book is a graphic novel. There are no "citation needed" tags, but there's also a lack of current information about the book with the most recent information being that the book was made into a play in 2015.

Comparing the two
The Fun Home article was definitely better-organized than The Handmaid's Tale in many respects such as The Hand Maid's Tale article's lack of define structure. Both are lacking much up to date material and need more critical material.

General observation:
The article on The Handmaid's Tale contains analysis in the summary section, it is unsourced and goes against the norm of having wikipedia articles in a neutral tone.

Concrete point of evaluation:
This text contains analysis that is un-cited in a summary section: "However, the future setting still presents some issues regarding attitudes to women: Professor Peixoto makes a sexist joke about Professor Maryann Crescent Moon, causing laughter from the audience, and highlighting his ignorance toward the situation." Wikipedia directs people to use neutral language in summaries as well as citing all opinion. A summary section for wikipedia pages on novels should also not include analysis.

Actionable item:
Find a source for this analysis and move the analysis of Peixoto's comment to an actual analysis section. I can also make the language more neutral to fit a summary section as to not loose the general details provided.