User:Kkukucka/sandbox

 Article Evaluation 

On the "Thomas Bowdler" (of The Family Shakespeare fame), focusing specifically on the Family Shakespeare section:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I'm really not into the introductory paragraph for the section: "In Bowdler's childhood, his father had entertained his family with readings from Shakespeare. Later, Bowdler realised that his father had been omitting or altering passages he felt unsuitable for the ears of his wife and children. Bowdler felt it would be worthwhile to publish an edition which might be used in a family whose father was not a sufficiently "circumspect and judicious reader" to accomplish this expurgation himself." Where is the evidence for Bowdler's realization? It cites this experience of the page's subject without sufficient backup (a cited quote from Bowdler could really strengthen this claim as to his realization). In addition, the phrasing sounds like it might come from the "correct the sentence" portion of the ACT; it's clunky and really distracted me from the reading (I may rephrase it right now to be a bit more streamlined, without changing the overall article).
 * The grammar of this section just... isn't great? The commas are improperly used, which is a pet peeve of mine. I'm going to edit it.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Could be added: whoever wrote this article uses the phrase "despite being considered a negative example by some" without ever citing examples of who the "some" is comprised of, or who exactly disapproved of Bowdler's expurgations. Citing this could make the claim much stronger.
 * The "Changes" section could really be expanded--hardly anything at all is cited.
 * What else could be improved?
 * This section, beyond its poor phrasing, just needs more considering what a monumental thing the Family Shakespeare was. I'd like to make it its own page, if possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This section of the article does indeed seem fairly neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so; it just generally needs more information.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * When provided, the links work. The sources support the claims that they are tied to in the article.
 * 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?
 * As stated above, I don't think the article has all the sourcing it needs (on top of being woefully insubstantial). Some information--such as the claim that "some" did not approve of Bowdler's expurgated edition--are just not backed up at all. Just because it is generally conceded does not mean that that it should not be cited.
 * The sources given, though, appear solid. Many are unbiased, encyclopedia-style writeups on Bowdler; when academic articles are cited, it is apparent what exactly the academics are looking for within Bowdler's works and what their focuses are. Any possible bias is noted in the sources themselves.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Not much has happened in this article's talk page since pre-2010. Someone asked for additional examples of The Family Shakespeare 's edits in 2006, and nothing was really added. Sad!
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Wikiprojects it is a part of: Biography (B-class on quality scale); Shakespeare (C-Class quality, Low/niche importance); and Chess due to Bowdler's chess skill (it is not important at all here).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It barely discusses it at all (still more than we talked about it), though it does provide a few examples of what Bowdler did. Also provides some additional examples of censoring/amending/expurgating Shakespeare, many of which are more extreme than Bowdler's expurgations. I'd like to see more!