User:Jeronimoflores/sandbox

'''I would agree that everything listed in the article is relevant and seems to give good examples in history to define what a protagonist is. The article also gives other examples such as synonyms and antonyms to give a better perspective of the article topic. Throughout the article, I did not find myself confused or distracted. I would say this article stands as a neutral article. This article doesn't claim to take a certain side on anything. This article succeeded in defining what a protagonist is. Also, no frames appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. The viewpoints presented in this article seem to be just right and neutral. I was able to successfully open and look through the links presented which made the article seem credible. The sources support the claims from the article and doesn't go off of topic. The facts referenced in the article seems to have a reliable reference. most of the information listed comes from internet sites. these sources appear to be consistent in staying in a neutral standpoint; article doesn't seem to take on a bias standpoint at any point in the article. As I looked though the articles information only a selected few were out of date. from the contents of the article, the article seems to touch on everything to help one understand the definition of a protagonist; nothing seems to be missing. as I considered the conversations, I begun to think I missed a few points in the article because of the different views they were saying. one conversation mentioned the inconsistency of the article that I would disagree and also mentioned the article didn't have a clear point that the protagonist is the main character, which I would also disagree. But, what interested me and made me reconsider the details given in this article is the lack of depth. I say this because one conversation mentioned the protagonists cannot exist in a story without opposition from a figure or figures called antagonist(s). The article does mention antagonist, but doesn't emphasize the little detail for what gives a protagonist its true name. for some reason, I could not find the rate of this article, but if I were to estimate the rate, I would say a 2 and a half stars out of 5. This article does appear to have Wikiprojects but the ones I viewed didn’t mention or pertain to the article; however, it says this article is of interest of the following Wikiprojects that were listed on the Talk page. From what I read, the article doesn’t seem to mention anything that could trigger a sense of sexism the way we discussed in class with the Gender Gap Wikipedia is experiencing. ''' My question I would have for this article would be if at any point in creating this article was there any intention to give a definition of protagonist without any deep thought to not fully help one understand what a protagonist really is?

this article relates to themes of gender and technology by stating males to ultimately take on the role of a main

the protagonists mentioned in these examples are mainly men. the one example in the play The Master Builder, a woman in the first half of the play takes on the role of the protagonist, then her step-son takes over the other half. this relates to the assumptions that women cannot sustain a role of a protagonist because of the existing equality gap between men and women. this relates to the structure in Rositters "women's work" which portrays the gender gap between men and women in science. Also this relates to the structure in wikipedias gender gap issue that exposes the importance for men to keep their dominant role instead of having a women having that role.

Jeronimoflores (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC).