User:Kmpresto/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article being evaluated: Nationalism Studies

Content
For an article intended to cover an entire field of study whose content is meant to span over the course of centuries and touch on a variety of different countries and cultures, this particular article is somewhat bereft of any meaningful information regarding the methods of research nor does the article touch meaningfully upon what areas of interest contemporary researchers tend to focus on. Furthermore, while the "History of the Field" section denotes that Nationalism Studies has been divided into four stages, only the first of these stages in expanded upon in its own section making the lack of information on the other three stages a glaringly obvious omission in the article itself. Furthermore, the article lists a great deal of scholars and journals that have contributed to the field of Nationalism Studies but does not mention the nature of their findings nor why their findings are pertinent to Nationalism Studies. In fact, the article fails to even mention why some scholars have chosen to invest in Nationalism Studies nor how Nationalism Studies further contributes to academia as a whole.

Tone
For the most part, this article takes a relative neutral tone. However, in the section titled "The future of the field" there are a few phrases that stand out to me as being less-than-neutral as well as un-sourced. For example, phrases such as "common sense" and "detached from reality" strike me as somewhat loaded, especially considering that they provide no sources to back up those claims.

Choice 1: Laura Schulz
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schulz

Chosen because, despite numerous contributions to the field of Child Development and Psychology, Schulz's page -- unlike the pages of many male academics -- does not discuss the specificity of her studies. Not only does this carry the implication that women's contributions to any sort of academic field are either insignificant or pointless to discuss, I also find that it is a bit of a nod to a culture that persists even within a "female-oriented" STEM field like psychology that considers Child Development as a topic to be frivolous -- likely because the act of working with and studying children is seen as closely tied to traditional notions of women's work. Meeting scope-of-work requirements will be done by fleshing out her personal life, elaborating on her "Awards and Recognition" section, and adding a section about her findings.

Source: Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. Developmental Science, 10(3), 322–332. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.calpoly.edu/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00587.x

Choice 2: Cynthia Gomez
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_G%C3%B3mez

Chosen because I find it telling that an article about a woman of color who dedicated most of her life to helping low-income people of color combat an incredibly stigmatized disease (HIV/AIDS) is so bereft of any meaningful information. The article reads as more of a list of bullet-points, some significant, some not, rather than an elaboration on her life and her work that would have otherwise been granted to her had she been White or a man (or perhaps if she had served White communities instead of minority ones). Scope of work requirements will be met via expanding on her personal life and discussing her driving motivation behind switching to a public health approach, speaking more heavily about her work and its impacts on the communities she has worked with, as well as expanding upon the more recent work she is currently doing.

Source: Gómez, C. A., Tat, S. A., Allen, D., Gordon, D., & Browe, D. (2017). What Will It Take to End the HIV/AIDS Epidemic? Linking the Most Disenfranchised Into Care Through Outreach. AIDS Patient Care & STDs, 31(3), 122–128. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.calpoly.edu/10.1089/apc.2016.0241

Choice 3: Rosemary Grant
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant

As discussed in class, I find this article particularly problematic as it attaches Rosemary Grant's work to that of her husband, implying that -- though they did collaborate jointly -- either her husband deserves credit for work she has completed or that, due to her being his wife, any work she does do also belongs to her husband. Skimming the article, it seems as if the Peter is mainly centered in the "narrative" the article is attempting to tell. This erasure of women's contributions to STEM is unfortunate and therefore, Rosemary Grant also deserves her own stand-alone page. It is also important to note that out of all the articles of woman scientist's I've looked at for the purpose of this assignment, this is the only article I've encountered that actually goes into detail about the nature and findings of their work which I am beginning to suspect is in-part because she is tied to a man. Scope of Work requirements would be met by creating a separate page for Rosemary Grant, delineating her specific contributions to the greater findings her and her husband produced, discussing her current work and contributions to the field, as well as discussing her early life prior to her marriage to Peter.

Source: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-02/bf-rap020618.php

Actual Sandbox
Will be partnering with someone to work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Mirzakhani the sandbox can be found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taebrahii/sandbox