User:LJ559/sandbox

Evaluation of a Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_(sociology)#:~:text=The%20imaginary%20(or%20social%20imaginary,group%20and%20the%20corresponding%20society.

Wikipedia Quality - Good	Rate from 1/10	Explain your rating

The Lead section is understandable - 5  While the lead section is understandable, it is seriously lacking information. A person unaware of the social imaginary may                                                      struggle to gain clear information. (it is understandable to someone who already understands the term).

The structure is clear - 3 While the structure is clear, especially the definition section, the article could have benefitted from a structure which                                               explained the idea from discipline to discipline. eg. a sociology section followed by philosophy, anthropology ect.

Good balance - 5  The article is not particularly well balanced. A lot of weight is placed upon the definitions. After this, the article gives                                                      small amounts of information on subjects like ontology, technology, and the architectural imaginary. This is due to the poor                                                     structure of the article and would likely be fixed if the article addressed each discipline it mentioned at the start                                                       thoroughly and independently.

Coverage is neutral - 9  The coverage seems neutral. No side (discipline) is shown to be above the other. This is probably due to the Authors failure                                                      to introduce and explain any sides.

Reliable sources - 7  The sources seem reliable, unfortunately there are multiple moments where a reference must be used and is not. The lack of                                                      referencing in the lead section is particularly concerning as people will likely only read that for a definition. Three                                                     claims are made and no references are presented.

Wikipedia quality - bad 	Rate from 1/10	Explain your rating

Has a warning banner on top - 2  There is no warning banner ontop of the article. However, in the talk section it is clear that this article is rated start-class on Wikipedia's quality scale, inferring the article is not complete, or sourced poorly.

Language Problems in Lead section - 4  The lead section contains 3 sentences. The second is hard to read. All 3 are very short, give facts, and aren't referenced.

Unsourced opinion & value statements - 7 While much of the article is sourced properly, the moments which aren't really stand out. Especially in the lead section. What is written doesn't sound like it is necessarily opinionated, it just has not been referenced.

Too general statements - 2 Generalised language is not really applicable within this article. That is because, rather than exploring the vast subject across disciplines, simply the definitions, and a few specific contexts of the social imaginary are discussed.

Aspects of the topic are missing - 10 An article about the social imaginary should not introduce the concepts utilisation across anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and media studies before proceeding to largely exclude anthropological and sociological information. Media and art seems to get more attention which makes no sense. Even Philosophy was only briefly alluded to within the discussion on ontology, albeit without being directly mentioned.

Overly long relative to importance - 4  This is hard to gauge as most of the short sections hold less importance than the definition section which is longer. If omitted sections are counted, then half of this article arguably shouldn't even be there, with large sections needing to be added.

Few references or lacks footnotes - 5  Once again the references which are used are good at face value. There are multiple different sources used. But more are needed to remedy the unacceptable amount of unsourced claims throughout the article.

Hostile dialogue in talk page - 4  There are a few critiques in the talk page but they are not hostile. It is mostly talking about the amount of jargon used and the difficulties people new to the concept may come across when trying to understand the utilisation of some terms.

Step 4 Minor Editing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System#Article_I

Meetings

"The Antarctic Treaty System's yearly Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) are the international forum for the administration and management of the region. Only 29 of the 54 parties to the agreements have the right to participate in decision-making at these meetings, though the other 25 are still allowed to attend. The decision-making participants are the Consultative Parties and, in addition to the 12 original signatories, include 17 countries that have demonstrated their interest in Antarctica by carrying out substantial scientific activity there.[16] The Antarctic Treaty also has Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (SATCM), which are generally summoned to treat more important topics but are less frequents and Meetings of Experts.[17]".

The Antarctic Treaty System's yearly Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) are the international forum for the administration and management of the region[16]. Of the 54 parties to the agreements, 29 have the right to participate in decision-making and are referred to as Consultative Parties, while the remaining 25 are only allowed to attend the meetings. The 29 Consultative Parties are comprised by the original signatories and 17 countries which have demonstrated considerable interest in Antarctica by carrying out substantial scientific activity there [17]. The Antarctic Treaty also has Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (SATCM), which are generally summoned to treat more important topics but are less frequent, often including multiple experts such as the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).[18][19].

added references - [16] - "ATCM and Other Meetings". ats.aq. Retrieved October 15 2020 [19] - "ATCM and Other Meetings". ats.aq. Retrieved October 15 2020

Aladdin (Franchise) Page: Controversies
The Aladdin Franchise, since its commencement in 1992, has faced backlash for its orientalist depictions of the Middle East (see Orientalism) [1]. While the franchise encompasses multiple films (both animated and live action), video games, TV series, amusement park rides, and a Broadway Musical, the films (which had cinema runs ie. Aladdin 1992, and Aladdin 2019) were and are the most influential and profitable aspects of the franchise [2][3]. Because of this, the two films will be the main subjects of this article. Aladdin (1992), and in fact all following franchise material are, according to Jack G. Shaheen, adaptions of an “Arabian Nights fantasy” [4]. It must be stated that this is contested, with the film’s origins being attributed to a Chinese tale, or of a narrative written by Frenchman Antoine Galland after hearing the story from a Syrian Maronite storyteller [5].

Aladdin (1992)
Aladdin (1992) is the first piece of media released under the Aladdin Franchise, in fact birthing it. While the film received a positive reception from audiences and critics alike [6], within 12 months, criticisms began to sweep across the media perhaps best encapsulated by New York Times article, ‘Its Racist, But Hey, Its Disney’ [7]. While the article focuses primarily on Disney’s decision to amend offensive lyrics within the opening song "Arabian Nights", criticisms surrounding whitewashing, misogyny (through the colonial/orientalist gaze), and a misrepresentation of Islamic Law, all fell upon the film [8][9][10].

When assessing Aladdin (1992) for instances of orientalism, the viewer is, according to an article by Richard Scheinin, subjected to the phenomena within “…the first minute of a children’s film.” [11] This immediate orientalist perspective is apparent within the lyrics of the initial verse of the opening song “Arabian Nights” [12]. The lyrics, which according to Wingfield and Karaman “set the tone” for the film, proceed as follows. “I come from a land, From a faraway place, Where the caravan camels roam. Where they cut off your ear If they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but hey, it's home.” [13].

As explained within the article “Its Racist, But Hey, Its Disney”, the offensive lyrics, “Where they cut off your ear, If they don't like your face”, were removed for the VHS home copy after extensive backlash from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee [14]. However, the final line, “It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home” remains in the film [15].

The film has also faced extensive backlash regarding potential whitewashing both in how the characters are presented to the audience, and the selection of voice actors. As explained within Alhassen (2018), “…lead characters are whitewashed, with anglicized versions of Arabic names and Western European (though brown-skinned) facial features. They speak with American accents. The villains, Jafar and the palace guards, are darker, swarthy, with undereye circles, hooked noses, black beards, and pronounced Arabic and British accents..” [16].

This view is supported by film critic Roger Ebert, who, commenting on the contrast of characters stated, “Wouldn’t it be reasonable that if all the characters in this movie come from the same genetic stock, they should resemble one another?” [17]. Beyond this, according to Giroux (1999), Disney’s President of feature animations at the time, Peter Schneider, openly admitted to modelling the character ‘Aladdin’ after American actor Tom Cruise [18].

The depiction of the heroine of the tale, Jasmine, has also received a large amount of criticism. As stated within Kini (2017),

“Jasmine has very little agency; her role in the film is entirely dependent on the men around her—her father, who admits that it’s not just because of the law that he’s forcing her to marry, but because he wants a man to “take care of her;” Jafar, who first wants to marry her for the power but then reveals it’s just lust for young flesh; and Aladdin, who spends most of the movie stalking her, going so far as to break into her bedroom at night and lie about his identity.” [19].

Beyond this, the character of Jasmine is also seen to represent a depiction of how the west wants to view females from the Middle East. Explained within Kini (2017),

“She doesn’t wear a hijab (except for when she’s masquerading as a poor and thus “backward” Muslim) and longs for love in a marriage while playing with caged birds. She’s the “right kind of Muslim”—the rich woman who bears little cultural markers of difference and rejects the shackles of her religion for liberated sex.” [20]

Throughout the film, Islamic law is also misrepresented, resulting in the audience witnessing a cruel, harsh religion [21]. For instance, as Jasmine walks through the market in the opening sequences, she takes an apple from a cart, giving it to a hungry child. While Islamic Law states one should never be punished for stealing due to hunger or poverty, the cart owner immediately attempts to cut off the heroine’s hand [22]. This misrepresentation, one consistent with the West’s prevailing views on Islam, as discussed within Nodelman (1992), is clearly problematic, especially as it is being delivered through a children’s film [23].

While the identified instances of orientalism discussed above are found within Aladdin (1992), the same issues can be seen to extend throughout the franchise. With the continuation of characters, their corresponding voice actors (with most characters), settings, and underlying themes, subsequent releases, such as The Return of Jafar (1994), are also tarnished by their perspective, or lack thereof [24].

Aladdin (2019)
Explained within Alsultany (2019), the live remake of Aladdin, or Aladdin (2019), was created by Disney after advice was sought from cultural consultants in the form of a Community Advisory Council [25]. This council, comprised of Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim scholars, activists and creatives, according to Alsultany (2019), led to “…some notable progress made in the live-action “Aladdin.”” [26]. This view, which praises the casting choices for the film, largely stands in contrast to the plethora of critiques regarding poor casting choices, the choice of Guy Ritchie as the director, and timing of the film’s release [27][28][29].

While the generally positive review given by Alsultany (2019) praises the film, stating, “despite the fact that some white extras had their skin darkened during filming, Disney did cast actors of Middle Eastern descent in most of the main roles.” [30], others, including Shakeri (2017) identify the casting choices as indicative of Disney’s view that “…South Asian and Middle Eastern people are interchangeable.” [31]. Beyond this, as stated within Shbat (2019), the “brown facing” of extras renders the film “beyond repair” [32]. With Egyptian-Canadian actor, Mena Massoud, playing Aladdin, Half British Half Indian actress Naomi Scott playing Jasmine, Dutch-Tunisian actor Marwan Kenzari playing Jafar, and Iranian-American actors Navid Negahban and Nasim Pedrad playing Jasmine’s father and a new character ‘Dalia’ respectively, the filmmakers were criticised, with suggestions they adopted a racist logic of “all brown people are the same” [33][34].

The selection of Guy Ritchie as the director of the film also drew criticism, in fact long before its release [35]. The choice of Guy Ritchie, both fuelled critique regarding casting choices and whitewashing while drawing criticism for transforming the film into a white man’s narrative [36][37].

Aladdin (2019) was released on the 22nd of May 2019 [38]. Pointed out within Khabeer (2019), this release fell in the middle of Ramadan [39], a month in which Muslims worldwide observe fasting, prayer, reflection and community [40]. The film was released one day before the final 10 days of the month, which are the most sacred, leading to claims that “…Disney has not shown any consideration for the Muslim community with this movie” [41], and that its release date “...is reflective of how clueless and ignorant Disney is. It’s so ridiculous that it’s laughable.” [42].