User:Jlongarzo/sandbox

Metacomet
Everything in the article seems relevant and closely related to the topic. The article is well written but very brief and could use some expansion on some of the content. Perhaps a timeline would be useful as its confusing as to what happens in each year. The section on Metacomb’s legacy also lacks detail and rather just lists a couple of monuments. The intro is very strong, it provides a very good holistic recount of the significant events surrounding his life. The article is neutral, it doesn't look like there is any bias or overrepresented viewpoints. The article is definitely missing some citations for some of the more general historical claims which should not be too difficult to fix. Most of the sources come from history websites like www.u-s-history.com or from some sort of .edu website. There are definitely no signal phrases and the information, while presented well, is not paraphrased very well and could possibly be at risk of plagiarizing the original source. The article is rated “Nearly a B” and could use a lot of work. Behind the scenes there is a lot of discussion surrounding the term “Native Americans” as the term is used throughout the article. The conversation surrounds using this term as a generalization for the vast amount of tribes and groups with their own nuanced traditions and uniqueness. I found this particularly interesting as it is not something I would have thought of as an issue, but now that it is being pointed out it seems inappropriate to use the term “Native Americans” as it was only a few groups that participated in King Philip’s War. This issue was actually pointed out in 2017 and to this day has not been changed. While never in this context and in regards to Native Americans, we have had some discussions around terminology and labeling in the LGBTQ community.

Handmaid’s Tale Wikipedia Evaluation
To start, the Wikipedia article is very mediocre, the introduction is tolerable and the summary could use some expansion and improvements but is at least accurate. The lead section and summary section do a solid job with following the format and portraying relevant information in an efficient manner. The characters section is also pretty strong. There is also a strong lack of information surrounding the book's public reception. This section needs particular work considering the scope of the book's influence and the amount of controversy it has sparked. I did notice there is not a significant analysis section that discusses the overarching themes of the book. Considering how dense some of the subjects are, it seems necessary that there should be a very detailed section of this article discussing the themes of desperacy, power, and the ever prevalent unreliable narrator. The article could benefit significantly from some more detailed academic analysis of the text and its deeper meaning. As a whole the article is vastly lacking in sources. Future editors should look to incorporate credible sources and academic figures into this Wikipedia article. The article needs a lot of work in regards to its structure and volume of reliable information.

Rule and Merriman points
In regards to the Rule article, the Handmaid's Tale's Wikipedia article would benefit most from incorporating information surrounding the significance of the book's dedication section. It is noted that Atwood dedicates the novel to her own ancestor Mary Webster but there is no note of Perry Miller, her Harvard professor. The significance of this dedication and the academic discussion surrounding infered parallels to Professor Pieixoto should be noted in this Wikipedia article.

For the Merriman article, the Handmaid's Tale's Wikipedia article could be significantly improved if there was some discussion surrounding implications of the white protagonist and the intersection between race and sex. As these issues are becoming increasingly societally significant, they should be discussed in a notable and well rated wikipedia article when applicable. This discussion could easily be placed under the analysis section that the article currently lacks.

Handmaid’s Tale Article VS Fun Home Article
While the Fun Home article is certainly a solid article, it lacks some modern and new information. This is particularly noticeable in the section surrounding its reception where the last recount is from 2012. Considering the increasing prevalence of discussion surrounding the LGBTQ community, suicide, and many other themes in the novel, this section is certainly inadequate and needs significant improvement. As compared to the article on the Handmaid's Tale, the Fun Home article does a much better job at noting some of the more nuanced themes in the novel. While it could certainly take a deeper dive, this analysis is largely accomplished in the section on "allusions".

The Handmaid's Tale and Fun Home Specific Issues and Responses Fix
- The article on The Handmaid's Tale is unorganized and missing vast amounts relevant information.

- The contents box after the article's introduction is too long and too complicated for anyone to actually utilize it to their benefit as noted by the fact that it is longer than my entire screen and requires that I scroll up and down to see all aspects.

- This contents box should be reduced to the major sections and perhaps some of the more developed and more significant examples within the larger sections. At the moment the content box includes almost every subsection of the article and places too much emphasis on minor aspects of the article.

Wolf of Wall Street Article Edits and Work
The Wolf of Wall Street has been a highly controversial film both in regards to its production, profanity, and underlying thematic interpretation. The film has sparked outrage and debates from critics, non profit organizations, and individuals connected to Jordan Belfort himself.

(insert Peta part here:) ---> In December 2013, before the film's premiere, the organization Friends of Animals criticized the use of the chimpanzee and organized a boycott of the film. Variety reported, "Friends of Animals thinks the chimp ... suffered irreversible psychological damage after being forced to act."[56] The Guardian said, "Criticism of The Wolf of Wall Street's use of a chimpanzee arrives as Hollywood comes under ever-increasing scrutiny for its employment of animals on screen," referring to a November 2013 report in The Hollywood Reporter that was critical of the American Humane Association's treatment of animals in films.[55] PETA also launched a campaign to highlight mistreatment of ape "actors" and to petition for DiCaprio not to work with great apes.[57] <---

Margot Robbie:

Margot Robbie who plays Jordan Belfort’s wife Naomi, recalls in an interview with Porter magazine her extreme discomfort during a risque scene in front of 30 all male crew members. In this provocative scene which takes place in their baby’s nursery Robbie’s character Naomi seduces her husband by touching herself and calling him “Daddy”. In this interview, Robbie recalls that filming this scene was “weird” and “embarrassing” largely because she was in a small room filled with male crew members. She states that “It doesn't come across when you're watching the movie, but in reality we're in a tiny bedroom with 30 crew crammed in. All men. For 17 hours I'm pretending to be touching myself. It's just a very weird thing and you have to bury the embarrassment and the absurdity, really deep, and fully commit.”

Thematic Debate:

The five time Academy Award nominated film has been praised by many as a brilliant piece of cinematography and criticized by others as a materialistic catastrophe which glorifies and even encourages acts of selfishness, greed and indecency. With its controversial content and portrayal of infamous figures, The Wolf of Wall Street has met a volume of controversy. Various parties have discussed the film’s portrayal of greed, selfishness, and the nature of Wall Street itself.

On one side of the debate there are those like Nikole TenBrink, vice president of marketing and membership at Risk Insurance Management Society, who believe that the film is a “cautionary tale of what can happen when fraud is left unchecked.” She describes Belfort’s business acumen, his talent in communicating and selling his ideas, and his ability to motivate others as offering “valuable lessons for risk professionals as they seek to avoid similar pitfalls”.(Learning from the Wolf...) In an interview Josh Greenstein, Chief Marketing Officer of Paramount Pictures during the film’s release describes how they attempted to portray the film as a film about the “overreaching greed of the ‘80s. He goes on to argue that “everything in this film is still applicable to what is going on today, where people are in life and how they’re feeling about the world.”

On the other side there are those who believe the film glorifies and encourages greed, extreme wealth, and the infamous individuals portrayed in the movie. Christina McDowell, whose father, Tom Prousalis, worked in association with Jordan Belfort accused the filmmakers of “exacerbating our national obsession with wealth and status and glorifying greed and psychopathic behavior.” She continues to emphasize the gravity and timely significance of Belfort’s crimes stating that Wolf of Wall Street is a "reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals".(Wolf… Christina Mc…) In response to Leonardo Dicaprio defending himself from criticism, Variety journalist Whitney Friedlander describes the movie as “still three hours of cash, drugs, hookers, repeat”. Friedlander argues that the film is a “celebration of this lifestyle” and preaches that short lived extreme wealth and extraordinary experiences are superior to a societally normal behavior. (Does Wolf of…)

Wolf of Wall Street Article Final Draft
The Wolf of Wall Street has been a highly controversial film both in regards to its production, profanity, and underlying thematic interpretation. The film has sparked outrage and debates from critics, non profit organizations, and individuals connected to Jordan Belfort himself.

Use of Animals
- My additions are in Bold, I also deleted and made much of this more comprehensible

In December 2013, prior to the film's premiere, the organization Friends of Animals criticized the use of the chimpanzee and organized a boycott of the film. Variety reported, "Friends of Animals thinks the chimp ... suffered irreversible psychological damage after being forced to act."[56] The Guardian commented on the increasing criticism of Hollywoods use of animals stating that "The Wolf of Wall Street's use of a chimpanzee arrives as Hollywood comes under ever-increasing scrutiny for its employment of animals on screen". PETA also launched a campaign to highlight mistreatment of ape "actors" and to petition for DiCaprio not to work with great apes.[57]

Margot Robbie
- All content is new

In an interview with Porter Magazine, Margot Robbie, who plays Jordan Belfort's wife Naomi, recalls her extreme discomfort during a risque scene in front of 30 all male crew members. In the film's provocative scene which takes place in their baby’s nursery Robbie’s character Naomi seduces her husband by touching herself and calling him “Daddy” to exert control over him. In this interview, Robbie recalls that filming this science was “weird” and “embarrassing” stating that that “It doesn't come across when you're watching the movie, but in reality we're in a tiny bedroom with 30 crew crammed in. All men. For 17 hours I'm pretending to be touching myself. It's just a very weird thing and you have to bury the embarrassment and the absurdity, really deep, and fully commit.”

Thematic Debate
- All content is new

Various scholars and individuals have criticized the film as materialistic, encouraging greedy behavior, extreme wealth, and advocating for the infamous individuals portrayed in the movie. Christina McDowell, whose father, Tom Prousalis, worked in association with Jordan Belfort accused the filmmakers of “exacerbating our national obsession with wealth and status and glorifying greed and psychopathic behavior.” She continues to emphasize the gravity and timely significance of Belfort’s crimes stating that Wolf of Wall Street is a "reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals".(Wolf… Christina Mc…) In response to Leonardo Dicaprio defending himself from criticism, Variety journalist Whitney Friedlander describes the movie as “still three hours of cash, drugs, hookers, repeat”. Friedlander argues that the film is a “celebration of this lifestyle” and preaches that short lived extreme wealth and extraordinary experiences are superior to a societally normal behavior. (Does Wolf of…)

There are also those like Nikole TenBrink, vice president of marketing and membership at Risk Insurance Management Society, who believe that the film is a “cautionary tale of what can happen when fraud is left unchecked.” She describes Belfort’s business acumen, his talent in communicating and selling his ideas, and his ability to motivate others as offering “valuable lessons for risk professionals as they seek to avoid similar pitfalls”.(Learning from the Wolf...) In an interview Josh Greenstein, Chief Marketing Officer of Paramount Pictures during the film’s release, he depicts how Paramount Pictures and his marketing team attempted to portray the film as a film about the “overreaching greed of the ‘80s. Greenstein proceeds to argue that “everything in this film is still applicable to what is going on today, where people are in life and how they’re feeling about the world.”

Jordan Belfort's Reception of the Film's Portrayal of Himself and Stratton Oakmont
- all content is new

In an interview on London Real with former former Wall Street banker and millionaire Brian Rose, Jordan Belfort commented on the film’s depiction of himself and of Stratton Oakmont. In this interview, Belfort mentions that the film did an excellent job at describing the “overall feeling of the movie” stating that “the comradery, the insanity was all accurate.” Regarding his use of drugs, Belfort mentions that his actual habits were “much worse” than that of the film explicitly stating that he was “on 22 different drugs at the end.”

Belfort also analyzes the major inaccuracies regarding the films oversimplification of Stratton Oakmont’s gradual transition from advocating for “speculative stocks” in order to “help build America” to increasingly senseless and greedy crimes. During the interview, Belfort expresses that he “didn’t like hearing” overly simplified and blunt depictions of his crimes because “it made me look like I was just trying to rip people off.” While unhappy with these practices, Belfort does acknowledge the cinematic benefits of these oversimplifications as “a very easy way in three hours” to “move the audience emotionally.”