User:Icf17/sandbox

Evaluation:

"Drama"

In the background section, we believe that it was misnamed. This section is primarily focused on the authors inspiration, and does not cover the true background of the graphic novel. This section is repetitive; the author's train of thought was not progressive, meaning the writer would write something and then come back to it without any movement forward in this discussion.

In the Genre and style section of the Wikipedia page, the writer "successfully" in an opinionated fashion. The writer needs to either erase the sentence or tag an author and citation to this sentence. The authors continues to do this in the second paragraph. The writer mentions another person, but does later mention the person in the second sentence, so the reader is not sure if this is an assertion or if the earlier introduced speaker said this statement. In the last sentence of the last paragraph there is a grammatical error (incomplete clause). This section is titled genre and style; however, it does not mention how this book fits into the genre as a whole. It discusses more about the criticism than the genre.

Evaluate the source: ("Nineteen-Eighty four") This source does not have any explicit information on the particular bans. The content is missing and needs to be added. The article as a whole celebrates 1984 as a book. They argue that this book was eye-opening and profoundly impacted people, but the page did not explain more of the negative criticism. After doing some brief research on challenges of this book, I found that there has been a lot of opposition to this book.There are several good sources attached to this article, and the sources cover a vast array of information that has to do with this book. The numerous sources and the large number of subtitles indicates that this page is extensive and covers a lot of ground. That is what I would expect since this book is very popular. The talk page has a lot of information on trying to decipher whether or not something is argumentative. Several people point out that some ideas needs a source, which is inline with what Wikipedia expects.

Editing Wikipedia Articles About: Notes

Book:

-be accurate, understand guidelines, engage with editors, avoid close paraphrasing, make a difference

-picking the right book: needs to be notable (published with 2+ top level articles)

-framework: do not have to directly follow, but too much deviation from standard form causes others to question the overall validity of your article

> lead > background > summery > genre > analysis > publication > reception > info box

Films:

-framework:

> lead > plot > cast > production > release > reception > others > categories > info box

Evaluation: A Wrinkle in Time (Book)

The Wikipedia article does not follow the standard format that the Wikipedia guidelines outlines, nor does it include all of elements that the guidelines include. Although the article does not need to include all of the elements that the guidelines suggest and does not need to be in a particular order, I do not think that the current information and order is conducive for a clear and coherent Wikipedia article. The article has publication history before the Plot of the book. While I understand the chronologically the publication occurs before the book enters the public, I believe that people should first learn about what happens during the book before they read about the publication. In fact, understanding the plot will help the reader better understand the publication.

In addition, I think this article needs to include a genre. The book's status as a science fiction novel is very important the the book's overall identity. The most striking feature of this book are its lofty ideas that deeply stretch the imagination of the children who read the book. Connecting A Wrinkle in Time, to the science fiction genre can also help contextualize the book in the grander world of children's books.

In "Breaking the rules: A defense of A Wrinkle In Time," Susannah Sheffer highlights that one claim against the book is that it "indoctrinates readers." However, under the reception section when the writer discusses why the book was challenged, the writer does not mention this claim. I would want to further elaborate that section to make sure it is as complete as possible.

Evaluation: Teaching for Change (page)

This Wikipedia page is limited to the programs this page has and the history of the program. I think the page would benefit from including more information about program. For example, teaching for change was implemented to benefit the Latino students in schools; they should add a section about the Impact this program has had on students and in schools. They could also add a section that discusses the top people involved. On the website they mention well known people who support this program but the page does not address this fact.

The writing relies heavily on information from the website, so if I were to spend more time on the page I would do more research to find credible sources that can offer another source perspective in order to make the article more well rounded. Also, since the page mainly uses the teaching for change website as a citation, the writer goes several sentences without citing. This practice can cause further confusion if the writer adds other sources to the section.

Overall, I think this page is underdeveloped and under-cited. However, the writing is clear for the most part and as the audience it is easy to follow the logic of the writing.

"Persepolis"

The Lead Section provides the basic information about the book. This section is written in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. The only problem that I found was that when introducing the article, the writers wrote that this is a graphic autobiography; however, later on the page under the genre sections the writers refer to the story as a "non-fictional graphic autobiography or a graphic novel based on Satrapi's life." Since the genre of the book is highly contested, I think the page group needs to choose one epithet to describe the book. As a reader, it is confusing to see that the book's genre is presented as a "or" phrase.

In the summery section, I feel like the writers miss a few key details, and the writing is often vague. I understand that the previous version was far too extensive, so I think the writers need to find a balance between too much and too little. For example, in the first book, the parents played an instrumental part in developing the children's political ideologies. Marji's parents were heavily involved in protest participation, and as a result, inspired her to want to get involved. When Marji went to the rally, she knowingly worked against her parents wishes and was punished afterwards. I think this is a significant because her parents play a fundamental part in not only her political identity but also her friends;

The character list is concise, including only the key characters. However, the list is slightly confusing because it tries to divide the list to indicate which characters show up in the different books. In doing so, it does not explicitly show that some characters that appear in the first book appear in the second. A possible solution would be to not differentiate. This book was originally 4 books, so the book boundary is already blurred.

The genre section is fairly problematic. The writers do not directly state the book's genre. Many factual statements lack a proper citation. The writers utilize large quotes, which calls into question their knowledge of this topic and the validity of the article of a whole.

The analysis section does a decent job writing out the arguments that writers have written about "Persepolis." This section includes a subsection illustrating the debate about what genre this book is. I think it is more logical and chronologically correct to include the analysis about the genre in the Genre section. This shift could help clear up my earlier confusion about why the writers of this article could not just choose one genre.

The publication history clearly outlines how the book was originally published in France in 4 volumes and then translated to English and published in 2 volumes. This section omits that this book is published in several other languages, which helps explain the global popularity. In addition, this section only includes one source. To improve the accuracy of the article, it would be beneficial to add another source.

The reception breaks describes the positive and negative responses to the graphic novel. This section is mostly well done because it includes the overall reception (it was number 2 on the most challenged books list) but also includes several specific examples of challenges. Editors in the future could look into expanding a few of the examples to make them clearer. For example, the Grafton Hills College explains that a student thought the book was disturbing; however, did not fully explain how that student challenged the book from there.

Lastly, in the other section, the writers introduce the film and the Persepolis 2.0. Editors need to include more details about the movie. After reading the section, I am not sure if the movie is in English or French. It would also be informative to include additional information about the actors involved.