User:Elizsexton/sandbox

Topic: US National Women's Crew Team
Class Intro: The United States National Women’s Crew Team is a selected group of elite female athletes who represent the United States in international competitions. The team has become a credible competitor since its first Olympics in 1976. The implementation of Title IX during the 1970’s had a large and positive impact on women’s collegiate rowing, and allowed for growth in interest and talent of the national team. The team is selected through a competitive, in-depth process that is facilitated by USRowing each year. Tom Terhaar has been the national women’s head coach since 2001, and is credited with much of their success in the past decade. The team’s eight (8+) has won a gold medal at every summer Olympics since 2004, and won the World Rowing Championships from 2005 until 2016. The eight (8+) also presently holds the world record. Old Intro: The United States Senior National Women's Crew Team is a group of elite female rowers who compete on an international level. The rowers are chosen through an intensive selection process, and compete in high-level races, including the Summer Olympic Games and the World Championship. The team is a part of the organization USRowing, which regulates and organizes all national teams and races. The National team is also referred to as the Senior or Olympic team. The team competed in their first Olympics during the summer of 1976 in Montreal, Canada. Over the past decades, the team has grown substantially and become quite competitive. The team has developed into a reputable program, and has consistently won medals as well as set world records. This team has become a dominating force in the field of women's rowing.

History
The first Olympics, and first international race, that included the United States women's rowing team took place in the summer of 1976. Prior to that summer, the United States women's rowing team did not compete at an international level. The International Rowing Federation, or FISA, had just began recognizing European women's teams in international competitions. Countries like Germany and Russia had strong national teams, and were pushing to be recognized in international competitions. The International Rowing Federation introduced a women's commission in 1969. The primary focus of the commission was to allow women to row at the Olympics and World Championships. Six women's boat categories were added to the 1974 World Rowing Championships. This addition created more momentum towards the approval of the addition of women's races to the Olympics, and in 1976 the same six races were officially added to the Olympic Games. The races were initially 1000 meters, but the International Rowing Federation pushed to change the race to the standard 2000 meters that men raced. This change was also implemented in the Olympics. Today, the same six races at the standard 2000 meters are standard for international competitions.

In the United States during the 1970's, Title IX was becoming implemented on college campuses. Women were pushing to be able to be treated equally in the world of athletics, specifically collegiate athletics. After Title IX went into act, collegiate athletic programs began needing to address the imbalance in men's and women's athletic programs and scholarships. Some elite colleges, like Yale University, already had women's rowing clubs or programs. These programs were not receiving the same funding or school support as the men's rowing programs or other male teams. The women's rowing team at Yale University protested to the athletic department during 1975, and drew national attention to their program and to the need for equality in women's collegiate sports. The women on this team had previously been forced to wait for their men's team to shower after practice, and were not provided with a locker room or usable showers themselves. They sat in on buses and waited, no matter what the weather conditions were. At the time, the women's team was just trying to gain access to usable showers, but journalists were able to capture the protest and draw attention to it. This shone a national spotlight on a women's crew program, and the importance of equal treatment of both men's and women's collegiate teams.

For many colleges with large male athletic teams, like football programs, women's rowing was an easy addition. Women's collegiate rowing was added to the NCAA, and many departments began to add scholarships in order to attract women to the team. Rowing is unique in that many women who are highly competitive in other sports can also be very successful rowers. Women who had no prior rowing experience, but who may have been athletes prior to college, could now try to join growing programs and find success in a new team. Schools that had previously developed the reputation of having successful women's collegiate crew programs, like Harvard University, now had competition from large universities. Large schools were able to spend large amounts of money on the development of their women's rowing programs, as they were also spending large amounts on their men's teams. This spread out the competition nationally, and eliminated the program divide between Ivy League schools and large public or state universities. Today, there are women's programs in all three divisions of the NCAA. Both private and public colleges competitively race, and the sport continues to grow in popularity.

The development in women's collegiate crew programs directly impacted the success of the women's national team. Women's teams across the United States were becoming faster, and the talent pool for the national team began to grow. During the 1976 Summer Olympics, the women's team won a bronze medal. This was one of their first successful international races. The women were determined to continue to develop and succeed on an international level. More and more collegiate athletes became hopeful that they could be selected for the national team, and the competition continued to increase. Today, thousands of women compete in high school, collegiate, and post-grad races. USRowing added two additional national teams: the Under 23 National Team, and the Under 19 National Team. Both of these teams compete on national and international levels against athletes of the same age group. The senior team does not have an age limit, which makes it the most difficult to be selected for. These teams allow younger, developing athletes to compete at a high-level. It also helps discover athletes who may be still developing, and who could later be selected for the senior national team.

Team Selection
Each year USRowing facilitates the team selection process for both the men's and women's senior national teams. This process is incredibly competitive and intense, but has led to assist in the growth and success of the national programs. There are two ways to become a part of the senior national team for the United States: by winning certain races in small boats, or being invited to participate in selection camps.

Because rowing has so many different types of races and boats, it can be difficult to find the right athletes for certain spots on the team. The national team's smaller boats, and some of the boats without coxswains, are the winners of specific races. These two races are chosen by USRowing, and are typically the World Championship trials, National Selection regattas, and the FISA World Cups. Each year USRowing releases a document with the specific qualifications in order to be a part of the national team. This can include specific placements in the selected races, or overall performances during these regattas. Typically, the winner of each race, and potentially a couple other places, are the selected groups to join the team.

For the more competitive races and bigger boats, like the women's 8+ and 4+, the athletes are chosen via the USRowing selection camp. The camp is an invitation-only event. The national team coaches distribute the invitations to athletes who meet a certain criteria that they set in collaboration with the USRowing organization. This criteria can include performance at identification camps, coach recommendations, performance in competition leading up to the present time, training performance, and other performance or recommendation-based qualities. If an athlete meets the qualifications, they are invited by the national coaches to the official selection camp. The coaches will then evaluate each athlete, and ensure that they are both compatible with the other athletes and capable of becoming a national team member.

These processes are also used for selecting the Under 23 and Under 19 national teams. The Under 23 team uses the Under 23 World Championship as a trial for boat eligibility, allowing each winning United States boat to be eligible for the team. The Under 19 team also has trial races, but only selects the single and double scullers and pairs from this race. Both the Under 23 and Under 19 teams have similar criteria in terms of recommendations, performance at national identification events, and overall ability for athletes chosen for the selection camps.

Influential Coaches
The present senior national team head coach is Tom Terhaar. Terhaar has been the head coach of the team for seventeen years, and has drastically improved the team's reputation and performance. Terhaar was a rower himself, and competed at both the high school and collegiate levels for St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute and Rutgers University respectively. He began his coaching career as the men's lightweight coach for Columbia University, and transitioned to an assistant coach for the women's national team in 1994.

In 2001 Tom Terhaar became head coach. He approached the team and coaching in a different way than previous coaches, and revamped the training program in order to ensure success. International competitors had rigorous programs for their female rowers, with intensive training schedules and high expectations. Prior to Terhaar's promotion, the team had been practicing significantly less than their competition. Terhaar implemented a "three-a-day" practice schedule; one that is similar to the time demands of a full-time profession. This allowed for the women to have more time to become comfortable with each other in the boat, as well as focus on how to better themselves and the team as a unit. It also provided them with more time to grow their technical skills, and become even more comfortable rowing with one another.

Rowers had also previously been expected to either sweep row or scull row in their training, not both. Terhaar began training all of the rowers to be able to scull and sweep row. This allowed for the women to be more versatile in their rowing, and more flexible in terms of being in different boats. The switch in training approach, and increase in practices and intensity proved to be quite successful. Within the first year of Terhaar becoming head coach, the team began to perform significantly better. Only a year after becoming head coach, Terhaar led the women to a gold medal at the world championships. At their first Olympics with Terhaar in 2004, the women's 8+ won a silver medal. Since the initial successes after Terhaar's promotion to head coach, the women have achieved many other high accomplishments.

Recent Success
Since the arrival of Coach Tom Terhaar, the women's team has achieved major wins in many international races. In every Olympics since his joining the team, the women's 8+ has medaled, and other boats have medaled or done exceptionally well. Their silver medal in the 2004 Summer Olympics was the first medal the team had won in years. During the world championship that year the women finished with a silver medal, but have proven themselves and won nearly every year since then.

During the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the women's 8+ raced incredibly well, and won gold. In the 2012 Summer Olympics the women continued to prove themselves, and commanded another gold. During the 2016 Summer Olympics the team dominated the competition yet again, and finished with another gold, beating out Great Britain by a few seconds.

The women also have performed exceptionally well every year at the world championships. For over a decade, they impressively finished with medals and some of the fastest times in the world. Their first gold medal with Terhaar came during the 2006 world championships, and was a huge morale and confidence booster in terms of being able to achieve success. They continued to win gold at the world championships through 2016. In 2017, the women placed fourth; a shocking result in their decade-long winning streak.

Another of the team's notable performances includes their world record for the women's 8+. During the 2013 world championships, the 8+ broke their own world record for the 2000 meter race, with a time of 5:54.160. The United States also set the world record in 1994 for the women's lightweight 4-, with a time of 6:36.400.

Pre-Writing Plan:
I plan to create this page in order to have a more official, compiled history and context of the US National Women's Crew Team. Over the past decade or so the team has achieved great successes, and there is not a page dedicated to the development and achievements of the team. Given the incredible record of the team I think they deserve their own page, especially given the amount of attention they received during the last Olympic games.

Tentative Outline: History in the United States, Development, Defining Races/Moments, Previous Members, Influential Coaches, Present Members

Some Sources:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/you-probably-dont-know-u-s-a-s-most-dominant-team-in-rio.html

http://www.rowinghistory.net/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/sports/olympics/us-womens-rowing-coach-says-secret-is-the-deep-talent-pool.html

A difficulty I foresee may be the amount of sources leading up to the 21st century (other than news articles).

Topic: Kiawah Island
In 1699, Captain George Raynor gained possession of Kiawah Island. On November 1, 1701, Captain Raynor sold half of the island to Captain William Davis, and left the other half in his will for his granddaughter. The half left to his will was passed through family members until John Stanyarne acquired the property. Stanyarne then purchased the remaining half of the island from the family of Captain Davis.

The island was primarily used for cattle farming prior to the Civil War. Stanyarne built an estate that was valued highly, falling into a category of value that only 19% of the properties of South Carolina qualified for. In his will he left the southwestern portion of the island to his granddaughter Mary Gibbs, and the northeastern portion to his granddaughter Elizabeth Vanderhorst. Both portions were to be passed down until the third generation, when they would become considered fee simple ownerships. Mary Gibbs passed away at a young age, and it is assumed that her father, Robert Gibbs, maintained her portion of the island.

During the Revolutionary War the island has very little records of events, other than its use as a safe, recovery space for American soldiers and their families. The Vanderhorst property was burned down during the time of the Revolutionary War, but was rebuilt shortly after, and finished in the beginning of the 19th century. The Vanderhorst family infrequently inhabited the island, and often stayed in their homes elsewhere along the Carolina coast. The Vanderhorst family still only claimed ownership of half of the island, with the other half being passed through the wills of the Gibbs family. A portion of the island controlled by the Gibbs family was sold to William Seabrook, and the other portion to Isaac Wilson. The island during this time only remained inhabited by slaves and the properties built by the families.

The Civil War impacted Kiawah Island as it did the entire South. There were not damages or incidents of note recorded. The Vanderhorst family was not presently residing there, but they did check the state of the property in the earlier years of the war. There are not records of what occurred on Kiawah during the war in terms of battles, but it was sieged by the North with Charleston and taken over by Northern troops. They remained stationed there as a precautionary measure. During this time, the properties seemed to have obtained damage, but it is unclear how or how extensive.

The Vanderhorst family did not have many records from this time period. It seems that at the end of the war they were in financial trouble, and were unsure about how to maintain ownership of Kiawah. They were able to keep their portion of the island, while the other two portions changed ownership. The Vanderhorsts hired freed slaves for labor, and were able to produce cotton on the island. By 1870, Arnoldus Vanderhorst, the present caretaker and owner of the Vanderhorst portion of Kiawah, recorded that the island was restored and there was agricultural growth.

Is the article relevant?
Yes. The topic is relevant and informative, and it has been edited relatively recently.

Is the article neutral? Are there balanced perspectives?
The article is neutral, but scattered. It feels like multiple people contributed to the article; there is not a great flow. There are multiple definitions of what electronic literature is, which gives a balanced perspective in terms of defining characteristics of digital literature. The history section does not fit only gives a brief overview with random details about how digital literature came to exist.

Are the sources neutral?
The majority of the sources seem neutral. There is one source sited from a Huffington Post blog post, which could potentially contain some bias. I went to the source to explore and found that it was partly an interview and partly informative, so probably not the best source for the information. A couple other sources seem like they are similar to the Huffington Post source, but they do not have links to them, or are not digital sources.

Are there balanced viewpoints, or are some over or underrepresented?
The viewpoints seem neutral. There are not any opinions that are overrepresented, and it seems like the authors tried to capture all aspects of electronic literature. The only section I would classify as underrepresented would be the history section, as the details are specific, but the general overview is relatively vague. There could be better details or transitions in order to establish a stronger timeline of the development of electronic literature.

Do the citations work, and are they supportive of the article?
The sources that are not hard-text sources work. I was surprised that a couple sources did not have links to PDF versions of the text, but others did.

Are all facts accurately sourced and supported? Are the sources biased?
It seems like the facts are accurately sourced and supported. As I mentioned before, a few of the sources seem to be biased, but can support the information. I think that this article could benefit from some better sources.

Is anything out to date? Is there anything missing?
It is not outdated, but it could discuss the amount of electronic literature that is used today more than it does. I think any information about the use of modern day electronic literature, or the amount of electronic literature that is consumed, could better the article.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of WikiProjects?
The article is a part of WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Computing. The Talk page is relatively quiet, and it does not look like this page has been heavily edited.

How does the way Wikipedia discuss this article differ from how we discuss it in class?
The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is slightly different than how we approach digital literacy in class. The article does not cover the topic of the amount of people who produce and consume digital literature, which we have discussed in class. It instead it gives a definition of what digital literacy is, and a broad overview of how digital literacy came to exist and currently exists in our society. We have discussed many more details about digital literature and its uses in class than the page does.