User:Hannahpierdolla/sandbox

Major Issues #1
Assess your articles


 * Does your article follow the basic layout structure of a Wikipedia article? Compare your article with other articles of its type or category in order to identify additional conventions related to this particular article.
 * What is the organizational flow of the article? Does it need a major restructuring?
 * Is there information out of place? Is everything in a sensible order? Is everything given proper emphasis?
 * Are there any sections that are too long or too short? Is there a way to rework it to avoid this? (Keep in mind that you might want to keep a short section if the division is appropriate but the content has not yet been provided).
 * Does the lead section provide the appropriate level of information? Should some information be moved down or brought up from the main content?
 * Examine the internal structure of each section. Is the information in the most logical order? Do likewise with each paragraph.

''Note that if you are making major changes to the organization, you might want to let the Wikipedia community know first and give a clear rationale for it in the talk page. These are often the most bold edits since they can rearrange a whole article. Don't be afraid to do it but make sure that you're clear about why and be open to push-back.''

Attribution Bias
The article does follow the basic layout structure of a Wikipedia article, though it does need a lot of rearranging/major restructuring, like the lead section. It is too lengthy, and is often slightly off-topic and the information included needs to be put in a different section. For example, there is an entire paragraph dedicated to the history of the attribution bias in the lead, when there is already a History subsection beneath the lead. This information should go there, as the history section is rather sparse and disorganized. The lead also does a poor job of defining what an attribution bias even is (ex. they do not specify what an attribution is, which is an important part of understanding the concept).

Aside from the lead, I think that the History section needs the most reorganization. It is filled with seemingly random subheadings and subsections that do not relate to each other and they are not in a logical order. I think that it should be broken down into Early Influences (with specific theories listed instead of researchers' names) and Creation and Development (with the subheadings retitled and rearranged). I think this would make more sense. Even in each paragraph, information seems scattered. I will have to do a lot of reorganization. Additionally, "Current Theory" is too short of a section, and I think it should be combined with "Types" as a section. And finally, I think that "Consequences of Actions" is a strange section in general, and I think I should break the information up and divide it into relevant, already-existing sections (if not, I need to retitle it something less subjective/random). I have already begun reorganizing things in my sandbox (see this link: User:Hannahpierdolla/New sandbox and compare with original: Attribution bias) and I think it already looks better!

Lily Ann Granderson
The main problem with the organization of this article is that there is none. It is not formatted like a standard Wikipedia article, as there are no headings/subheadings or any real division of information besides paragraphs. Therefore, there is no "lead" section (or any other section) for me to analyze.

The information present seems to be in chronological order of Granderson's life. It is logically placed, and I don't foresee myself having to rearrange specific sentences or move paragraphs up or down. I will simply have to create sections to place the information in. I can probably rework this information into a Early Childhood, Adulthood (which would include her major contribution - opening the school - and the lawsuit that followed), and Later Life. I may or may not divide Adulthood up further, as that is probably what people are coming to the article for. I will consult other biographical articles to make my final decision, but for now, that is my plan. Using the current sources (as well as 30 minutes of research), I can probably construct a compelling lead section as well, but I believe I will have to write that completely from scratch.

Major Issues #2
Assess your articles:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does any of the information read as original research?
 * Think about the citations. Do the sources support the claims in the article? Are there places where more sources are needed?
 * 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?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Attribution Bias
Most of the article seems relevant to the article topic. As I work further with the article, I may discover that some of the content is too “extended” (ex. There are a ton of “examples” of attribution biases, and I think there’s not need to be so extensively detailed on some of them). The article is not neutral, and I think this will be my biggest issue/challenge when working with this particular article. It is not written objectively; instead, it is written as an argumentative paper that tries to convince readers that attribution biases are important to study. There’s not need for this in a Wikipedia article, so I will work on making it more neutral by eliminating some sentences and rewording others. The viewpoint that is overrepresented is probably the viewpoint that attribution biases are important to study. I will eliminate this argument in the article.

There does not seem to be any original research in this article (thank goodness!). This means that I will not have to do any extra research to make up for the non-credible sources. I do think that the article does not have enough internal citations, so I will examine the information and sources where it came from at the bottom (of which there are a plethora) and do some “matching.” Most of the sources come from published research papers/studies which are reliable and unbiased. I don’t think I will have any issues with needing to find more sources for this article. A good chunk of the information comes from older sources, but these psychological terms are pretty old, and most of the older sources are used for the “history” section, which would make sense. No information is missing; if anything, I need to eliminate some information.

Lily Ann Granderson
All of the information in this article is relevant to the life and legacy of Lily Ann Granderson. As there is not that much information to begin with (this article is rather short), this is a good sign for me. The article is neutral, though at times it does border on a “too casual” tone, so I will make those instances more sophisticated/formal.

There are only six sources used for this article (none of them original research as far as I can tell), and so there does need to be more sources included (as the blurb on the article suggests). The sources at the bottom also need to be correctly formatted. I think I will have to do some research to provide more sources for this article, and, just like in my Attribution Bias, I will need to do some “matching” for internal citations. I don’t believe any information is out of date, but I think there can definitely be more information added to Granderson’s biography in general/what her contributions meant for the world.

Attribution Bias
My article, Attribution Bias, includes rhetorical questions and first and second-person perspectives. I have already begun work on changing these to third person and eliminating the rhetorical questions ("What about when we don't have access to such information, for example, when interacting with someone we don't know well?"). The tone overall for Attribution Bias is informal and seems to take an argumentative stance instead of a neutral, encyclopedic tone ("Attribution biases are present in everyday life, and therefore are an important and relevant topic to study"). It also uses “editorializing words” every now and then, so I will watch out for those.

Lily Ann Granderson
For Lily Ann Granderson, there are few issues with tone (though there are a few cases where I need to fix up the wording to be more formal and neutral). For example, the article seems to be in "storytelling" mode, using many substitutes for the word "said" ("She begged the slave master to remove her from the field and place her somewhere where the work wasn't so hard on her health. After much begging, the slave master allowed her to work in the kitchen at his home"). This is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and I will work on rephrasing such sentences. However, I will mostly be working on organization and researching for this article.

Older Assignments
Order of Articles I Want (1 - most; 5 - least)


 * 1) Psycholinguistics
 * 2) Gaslighting
 * 3) Lily Ann Granderson
 * 4) Attribution Bias
 * 5) Alice in Wonderland syndrome

Christmas Ham:

- There is a considerable lack of information (only two sections that have actual information about the Christmas Ham - Swedish traditions and Australian traditions - and those sections are not very long)

- I believe that it could be organized better, including a history section and then an overarching Cultural Traditions section where Swedish and Australian traditions can be placed under

- the pictures chosen do not necessarily line up with the information presented. For example, there is a photo captioned "A Finnish Christmas ham," but there is no mention of the Finnish tradition of Christmas Ham - just Australian and Swedish

List of Syrian Cheeses:

- there is a bubble at the top of the page that mentions that the article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its content and that it relies on a single source. I would have to agree with this

- there is also a general lack of information about each cheese listed (most of them get one sentence each)

-there are not a lot of photographs to give the article more substance/examples of what the cheese looks like

-two of the cheeses have the same descriptive line : "salty white cheese" and do not differentiate between the two enough

-I think there should be a history of cheese/importance of cheese in Syrian culture somewhere in this list, as it seems very sparse.