User:Flip Deciantis/sandbox

Evaluating of Wikipedia Article: Tucson High Magnet School
Evaluating content

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

The information included in the article is definitely relevant to the Tucson High Magnet School. I think the editor provides a very clear account of the history and accolades of the school itself. I did notice, however, that the "Badger Foundation" section seemed a little random to me. Although it applies to the topic, it seemed a bit strange to include, especially given its short length.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps.

The information seems relatively up to date, but the article itself does not include any references to events after 2016. The references section does at least feature one citation from 2019 of peoples.com, so that is a positive aspect.

What else could be improved?

I think I could definitely add a great deal of detail regarding the controversy that the THMS has faced due to its revolutionary program. After reading the Acosta article I feel that I have a great deal of information to convey.

Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article?

The lead section does a good job of introducing the general information of the THMS. Without diving too deep into the school's history, the lead section...

Evaluating tone

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

I think the article definitely takes a very neutral approach to the content. At no particular point did I notice any glaringly biased tones or conceptions.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I feel that the article could dive a bit deeper into the THMS's commitment to the furthering of Chicano literature. The "Programs" section does not really do justice to the revolutionary nature of this aspect of the school itself.

Evaluating sources

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

In clicking a few of the citations, I found that the links do, in fact, work and serve to provide useful and applicable background information regarding the THMS as a whole.

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? For example, does the writer use signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information?

I feel that the references in the article could be a bit more abundant. Usually on Wikipedia, almost every sentence should be followed by or include a citation of some sort. In this article, there are large bodies of text that go without references. That being said, the sources that are cited are certainly reliable and unbiased, and the writer does a good job of using signal phrases to transition appropriately.

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

Apparently, one writer made adjustments to seven of the external links to ensure that the article was providing accurate and significant information. Otherwise, the Talk page is relatively empty.

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

One other writer also noted that he/she was surprised about the lack of in-depth history included within the page, which corresponds with what I found the article lacking in as well.

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

The article does not seem to have any kind of rating in the Talk page and is not part of any Wikiprojects.

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

The Wikipedia article takes a more distant approach to the history of the THMS than we have in class. I feel that the Acosta article we read gave a very personal and detailed look at the school's Chicano programs, which are not so intricately described in the article. I feel that such detail could be a very valuable addition.

Evaluating the The Handmaid’s Tale Article on Wikipedia
The article does not include a clearly labeled "Background" section as described in the Wikipedia template for books. This sections is supposed to describe how the book originated, the way it fits in with other works by the same author, and what the book serves as a response to. This information would be useful to the reader in terms of providing an understanding of what type of setting this book emerged from. Similarly, the Lead Section needs to be cleaned up, as it possesses a seemingly opinion-based analysis in the third paragraph. It is also important to note that the article completely ignores Wikipedia's recommendation of the inclusion of an "Analysis" section. Without this explicitly labeled segment, the writer deprives the author of important information regarding the extended response of critics. The part labeled "Critical Reception" could be expanded upon and included in a broader "Analysis" block. The "Characters" and "Setting" sections also appear to be very convoluted and actually somewhat confusing, which hurts the strength of the article as a whole. Furthermore, in looking through the "Character" list, I found that the Professor Pieixoto portion does not at all do justice to the misogynistic and demeaning nature of his part.

Potential Addition to the The Handmaid's Tale article from the Rule article:

In her article "Not Fading into Another Landscape: Specters of American Empire in Margaret Atwood's Fiction," Lauren A. Rule explains the way that the "Historical Notes" in the novel seem to suggest the fact that human beings hold tight to these misogynistic tendencies to control women and their bodies (630).

This new addition to the article would be an extremely effective way to address begin an "Analysis" section. This information would be very significant due to its ability to demonstrate how scholarly critics approached the novel. Similarly, this citation in particular refers to Professor Pieixoto and important character traits that are left out of his description.

Potential Addition to the The Handmaid's Tale article from the Merriman article:

In an attempt to address the fact that Atwood fails to recognize the ties to the mistreatment of women in her novel to the cruelties faced by African American slaves, Ben Merriman's article, "White-washing Oppression in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale," takes a very combative stance. Essentially, Merriman posits that the entire novel contains imagery and references that are pulled directly from the experiences of slaves in America, but never accounted for as such by Atwood. He feels that Atwood completely ignores the similarities, or worse, she intentionally leaves out black characters. The seeming similarities between the "sexual exploitation, isolation, and compelled ignorance" in slavery and Gilead seem undeniable to Merriman (1).

Comparing the Wikipedia Articles of Fun Home and The Handmaid's Tale
What are some differences between the articles?


 * Despite the fact that the article on the Handmaid's Tale is significantly longer than the section pertaining to Fun Home, the latter contains far more references to external material. Essentially, the Handmaid's Tale article makes claims and injects information that is never properly cited, while the creators of the Fun Home page were much more careful and methodical. It is also important to note the way that the Fun Home article contains a lot of different pictures that relate the the text of the article, while the Handmaid's Tale is basically just a wall of text. I feel that the ideas and points made within the Fun Home are advanced and clarified by the pictures that work alongside them.

Do you see areas where you can add to the Fun Home article despite its high rating?


 * I feel that the Fun Home article could certainly be divided into categories more in line with Wikipedia's recommended structure. For example, a "Background" section could be added, along with an "Analysis." A lot of the information that the writer included in the "Themes" section would fit well within a "Background" subdivision.; While the ideas that would pertain to these two sections are present within the article, I feel that the information could be rearranged in a way that better suits Wikipedia's purpose and goal in the article. I also feel that the Fun Home article has a very unnecessarily wordy Lead Section. For example, the writer goes into a discussion of specific book reviews and even mentions the director of the musical adaptation of the story, both of which are details that are simply too in-depth to be included within a Lead Page, which is supposed to provide basic information about the book and summarize the article as a whole. In this, sense the Fun Home and Handmaid's Tale articles share a very similar weakness, despite the discrepancy between their ratings. In my review of the page I also noted that many of the references are relatively old. I only saw a few, if any, external references to material from after 2014. This is certainly a notable content gap given the fact that more scholarly writing and discussion into Bechdel's story has certainly been published and would be useful in furthering the value of the article.

Three-Part Evaluation of The Handmaids's Tale Wikipedia Article
General Observation: The article itself contains ideas and connections without any reference to outside sources as evidence.

Concrete Point of Evaluation: "Atwood connects their concerns with infertility to real-life problems our world faces, such as radiation, chemical pollution, and venereal disease (HIV/AIDS is specifically mentioned in the "Historical Notes" section at the end of the novel, which was a relatively new disease at the time of Atwood's writing whose long-term impact was still unknown)." This quote demonstrates the fact that the writer made connections to the broader world, thus including slight opinion as well as completely unreferenced statements of apparent fact. Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the constant referral to other sources to avoid including original or incorrect ideas.

Actionable Item: The quote below is pulled from an essay written by Margaret Atwood herself regarding the relationship between the modern world and her novel, The Handmaid's Tale. In the essay she describes the importance of fertility in Gilead and references the toxic waste cleanup in the novel. On the broader scale, Atwood also discussed how the novel can be applied to current election turmoil and discontent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/books/review/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-age-of-trump.html

Three-Part Evaluation of the Fun Home Wikipedia Article
General Observation: The Lead Section within the Fun Home article is unnecessarily extensive and wordy.

Concrete Point of Evaluation: "In 2013, a musical adaptation of Fun Home at The Public Theater enjoyed multiple extensions to its run, with book and lyrics written by Obie Award-winning playwright Lisa Kron, and score composed by Tony Award-nominated Jeanine Tesori. The production, directed by Sam Gold, was called "the first mainstream musical about a young lesbian." This quote clearly contains information that is unfit for the brief Lead Section as described in Wikipedia's criteria for an article regarding a novel. This information is fundamentally distinct from the quick introduction that this section is supposed to simply provide an overview.

Actionable Item: I would recommend deleting large portions of the Lead Section of the Fun Home page because there is a great deal of content that is excessive.

Potential Changes for Animal Farm Wikipedia Page
Genre Section:


 * Political Satire/Animal Fable
 * Scholarly, but slightly critical approach
 * Similar focus on dystopia in 1984 and Animal Farm.
 * It is said that Orwell probably projected himself onto his characters in works of fiction
 * A lot of his literature revolved around World War II sentiments
 * Big Brother, Doublespeak, and 1984 all show his fears for the potential conditions of the world
 * "Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"
 * From Orwell in his own essay "Politics and the English Language"

Reception (Scholarly and School Bans):


 * School Controversy (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics)
 * Banned from Bay County middle school and high school
 * Book was reinstated after 44 parents filed a suit claiming that the censorship was a denial of constitutional rights
 * John Birch Society in Wisconsin challenged the book in 1963 because of reference to "masses revolting"
 * Not allowed to be display at the Russia International Book Fair in 1977 in Moscow
 * Political theories in the book led to objections from 1979-1982 in DeKalb County, Georgia
 * Banned in schools in the United Arab Emirates for contradicting Arab and Islamic values with descriptions and images of indecencies such as alcoholic beverages and pigs
 * 1968 survey of New York State English departments revealed Animal Farm as a problem book because of the suggestion that "Orwell was a communist."