User:D3032447367/sandbox

Wikipedia: Add to an article

 * Citation Hunt: Low-Alcohol Beer
 * Before: In Australia, regular beers have approximately 5% ABV; reduced-alcohol beers have 2.2%–3.2%. [citation needed]
 * After: In Australia, regular beers have approximately 4%-5% ABV, while light beers have 2.2%-3.2%.

Possible Articles To Work On
Wikipedia Topic 1: Bell Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Canada)


 * The first thing I noticed is that there is no warning box at the top of the article, indicating that the information noted within the article is probably very accurate and from reliable sources.
 * I felt that the “competition and territory reduction” sub-section did not properly fit within the section of “History”.  Rather, I felt as if it could have been its own section, especially considering its length.
 * Additionally, I felt as if there should be the inclusion of the #BellLetsTalk movement.  Considering that Bell Canada began the inception of the movement, and it is widely recognized nationally in Canada, it seems strange that it would not be included.  I think it would best be included as a subsection within the marketing section.
 * Everything appeared to be properly cited when needed, and all citation hyperlinks at the end of the page worked when I clicked on them.
 * Although the article is quite comprehensive, I believe that its focus is on Bell Canada as it is perceived from the public’s perspective. This includes sections such as criticism and competition & territory reduction, which analyze the company’s position in society. On the other hand, the ‘Services’ section which explores the company internally is very short and rather incomplete. I believe it is worthwhile providing additional information about the company’s operations and internal processes, including but not limited to: Bell’s values and objectives, product lines and offerings, employee satisfaction, internal scandals, etc.
 * Even though the article uses several sources from 2019, I noticed that it is slightly out of date, and does not provide the most recent information on the company. For example, as of last month, Bell Canada has been receiving a great deal of criticism regarding their decision to keep prison call prices very high, of which it attains a 100% monopoly over. Albeit important and current, there is no mention of this in the article.
 * The article is void of any spelling and grammar mistakes. The only contention is that the article uses English spelling throughout, instead of the American variant. However, this is probably expected as Bell is a Canadian company.

Wikipedia Topic 2: Bell Let’s Talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Let%27s_Talk)


 * The article does a great job staying relevant to the topic of the social movement, Bell Let's Talk. There were only two instances where campaigns that stemmed from the Bell movement were described in detail, but they were still relevant to the overall topic. The organization of the article also made it easy to follow and connect to the main theme. The article has been frequently updated, and even has detailed additions from the current year.
 * At first glance, the article seemed very objective with facts to back statements. After reading the warning sign that the main contributor is closely related to the subject and most citations were based off primary sources, it appeared to me that the article wasn't neutral. There has been lots of criticism over the intent of the movement, specifically that it was a way to get free advertising, opposed to the declared mission statement of aiding mental health issues. The article makes many claims about the intentions of the company, and I think it is impossible to make assumptions on someone else's intentions. However, if I were to have not read the warning message or checked sources, I would not have noticed the bias.
 * The criticism section of the article is underrepresented. It only includes a couple short paragraphs at the bottom of the page, and doesn't provide much detail to the full scope of criticism the movement received.
 * Out of all the citations I checked, all the links worked and supported the claims of the article
 * Most all facts are cited with a reference, but many of those references are from a primary source. The bias is noted as a warning message in the beginning of the article referencing the need for more neutral sources and content.
 * Much of the Talk page includes discussion on how to make the article less biased with fewer primary sources. There is also talk about condensing sections and paying close attention to minor edits like word choice.
 * The article includes a chronological order of results by year, but the comments are biased and seem like an advertisement for Bell. I feel this section is not a sustainable model for the future and contributes to the bias warning.
 * The article is void of any spelling and grammar mistakes, and is very well worded. However, the article uses English spelling rather than the American variants, not that this is an issue!


 * pares to our class.
 * My comment on the Talks page: Talk:Bell Let's Talk

Article Evaluation: #BellLetsTalk

 * Everything in the article appears to be relevant to #BellLet'sTalk. I also admired how in depth the Wikipedia article was, with subsections describing annual results/contributions.I would say the only primary distraction to me was that when I first navigated to the page, it had the warning sign, indicating that it may not be a very reliable page.
 * The information appears to be very up to date, as it already includes 2020 contributions, despite the year just beginning.
 * The tone of the article at first appears to be neutral. However, there are two things that stuck out to me, as to why I would say it is not neutral, and rather, is quite biased. The first reason is: the warning sign at the top of the article indicates that the article was heavily contributed to by someone close to the subject, and contains a significant amount of references to primary sources; both of these signal that the article is likely skewed by people who are very familiar with and involved with the subject, and therefore are heavily opinionated with the matter. The second reason I would say the article is quite biased, is that the criticism section only highlights two areas (Treatment of Bell Employees and Profits from Jail), when I know in actuality, there is additional broader criticism (such as how it can be seen as a marketing stunt for Bell Telecommunications rather than for mental health awareness); for this reason, I would say the article is significantly underrepresented from a criticism viewpoint.
 * In terms of citations, for every citation that I clicked on, the link worked. Each citation also properly supports the respective claim in the article, which is reassuring to it's accuracy. That being said, even though all claims appear to be accurate, it is important to note that they are likely biased, due to the fact that (as noted above), many primary sources are people associated with the subject.
 * In terms of the talk page, it focuses heavily on how the article is extremely lengthy/ has over-usage of content, and also, how the article is biased/not neutral. Both arguments suggest that the article should be condensed to be more concise, and be less biased with its respective sources.
 * The article has been rated with a B-class, and has been contributed to by WikiProjects groups: WikiProject Television and WikiProject Canada.
 * Because the subject has not been discussed in class, I can not comment on how the way Wikipedia discusses the subject compares to our class.
 * My comment on the Talks page: Talk:Bell Let's Talk