User:Hoogbrarian/sandbox

Evaluating Wikipedia

Evaluating Content:
In reading through the content, everything discussed is tied into the topic of la Befana. Each section was related, starting out with a general overview, the legend, historical past & significance, contemporary culture, and poems & songs (except the examples shown are both poems). It's also very interesting that in the contemporary culture piece, it didn't mention anything at all of the very popular children's author, Tomie DePoala, and his fiction that features Befana, or of the side-by-side appearance of Befana & Santa Claus in areas such as Rome where there is a blend of celebrations & a large ex-pat community. What I found distracting was the stilted writing: the sentence construction was choppy and the tone didn't flow naturally. Also the images were really rotten--there are surely much better quality images, even for free, of Befana--of people dressed as her as well as her many representations in dolls, movies, etc. The information isn't egregiously error-ridden.

While the information pulled is from 2009-2011, and there may be more up-to-date resources on Befana or that include information on her, I don't think, at this time, that we would find wildly new information; however, it is possible. Tomie DePoala is missing and I would add that, as well as the mention of cross-celebration in Rome. Content-wise, I would be interested to see more detail relevant to Befana and perhaps lists to cultural resources (movies, books, etc.) as well as links to any celebration calendars that include visitations from her (particularly if it's a large city, like Boston or Rome).

The writing style needs improvement as well as the images. Also, the outside links do not link to worthwhile documentation, instead they link to visually unappealing and outdated materials, and also nothing that really can further lead someone into more interesting or unique research paths, or provide more information on the internet. At this point, Google would be a more useful tool than just using the Wikipedia article.

Evaluating Tone:
The article tone is neutral. It doesn't suggest one way or the other as to the writer's opinion of Befana being good/bad or any other sort of "feelings-based" idea. I did not notice any claims that appeared to be heavily biased. With regards to viewpoints over- or under-represented, what did stand out was the focus on just a few local tradition and a single mention of a Canadian tradition, with no citation to it, and no citations were provided for the towns that are claimed to be the main places currently associated with celebrating Befana. However, from my own experiences, I can say that this is incorrect--that Rome itself has a tradition with Befana--and I would want to make sure this is included with documentation I can provide (which also ties into content evaluation & evaluating sources).

Evaluating Sources:
Not all the links work. For example, citations #5 & 6 go to the web hosting page rather than to the website (which is likely now defunct). Citation #2 is being used to support the idea of Befana's name is a derivation from Epifania, but the source they use to support this claim is a random language translation website and not a scholarly source at all that can support it with etymological research. Not every fact reference contains an appropriate and reliable reference, and I am hesitant to trust much of what's on this page. The sources being used are popular/questionable and though not very outdated, they're not pages that are being maintained. It's not so much that the resources are biased, but just that they're not academic and not necessarily trustworthy--it's difficult to tell who some of these people are that are claiming the information the article creator decided to rely on. It appears to me that whoever put the article together only went so far to do a Google search and did a very lazy job of researching and editing. Also there are "citation needed" mentions on the page that need exploring such as the claim that "three places in Italy are nowadays associated with the Befana tradition."

Checking the Talk Page:
The conversations are old, with the exception of one from Dec. 2018 in which the page was moved from La Befana to Befana (dropping the article). Otherwise the conversations were about the etymology of the word and how widespread the celebration was. It does not appear any of the questions asked in the talk page were ever followed up on. The article is rated as low-importance and are part of the projects Holidays and Christianity. As far as Wikipedia discussing this topic specifically and it differing in class, obviously we're not being subject-specific, but with regards to what we've learned so far in class (i.e. information literacy) and how it's being handled here: right now, this is not a good example of a high quality item that anyone would want or should use for a research topic: with the unit on Authority, we just completed, looking at the sources that are cited, the credibility is extremely low. The sources linked to are either broken or not kept up with, suggesting the work may very well be outdated, and there is no "authority" to a lot of the sources (some are anonymous) and then others are oddly chosen (e.g. Why is the German newspaper Speigel Online cited? Why not an Italian newspaper?  And then there's a question about whether the writers of the article have good translations or the skills to translate what they're reading rather than relying on a potentially faulty computer-generated translation), and finally, and most likely, because this article is considered "low importance" there is little recent activity and a lack of close attention given to what is currently there. It might be okay to read for general information purposes, but even then, I would encourage people to find other resources.