User:MadelaineH123/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article: Homophobia

Everything listed in the article is relevant. Some statements come across slightly biased, but other viewpoints are also offered which seems to correct this. The links and citations are all accurate and working, but more citations are needed on a few subjects in this article. The sources seem to be neutral as many of them are statistics. I don't believe it's part of a wikiproject, but it is stated that much of the content is highly debated which could potentially lead to inaccuracies. Some statements are unclear, as under "Institutionalized Homophobia". It discusses different country's and their penalties for homophobia and says "two do in some regions: Nigeria, Somalia" Two do what? The title "Distribution of Attitudes" should also be edited for clarity. Under this subtitle, as well, it tries to break up how culture perpetuates homophobia for black and white individuals, but lists essentially the same thing under each racial category. The differentiation between the two can be done away with. Lastly, there are multiple places that say "some say" or "some religions do", but never specifies. This is too open ended and needs to be clarified. The talk page discusses how these are "weasel words", but it is yet to be edited to fix this. I believe the page was very similar to our class discussions on this topic. The only way they differ is that this page has less clarity and could use some minor editing to make it more easily understood and less vague.

Article: Masculinity

Most things in this article seem to be relevant, but under the topic of "Nature vs. Nurture" it says something regarding the military having a vested interest in a standard idea of masculinity, but doesn't create it. This is relevant to the topic as a whole, but the placement within the paragraph seems random and doesn't flow well. As a whole, it seems unbiased, but I'm skeptical of that seeing that near the top of the page, there is a bold, big link to the "Men's Rights Movement" which takes you to a page that is not educational about this movement, but for the movement itself. There are a few grammatical errors throughout and lacks quotation marks on a few direct quotes. The article could also use more citations, but the citations it does have seem to be correct and work when clicked on. There is a warning in the talk page that says it contains original work as opposed to researched, cited work. It seems to be similar to our discussions and reading of the topics in class, but underestimates the severity that contemporary masculine ideals place on violent, violating, or intrusive behavior.

Article: Exploitation of Women in Mass Media

Everything listed in the article seems relevant and unbiased, but I'm skeptical of this as the tone seems to imply that this is not a bad thing to exploit women. There is also a counter argument section which seems irrelevant and geared more towards the idea that this negative idea of exploitation isn't true. The links seem to work and be unbiased, but again, I'm skeptical of this as this is a highly debated topic and people may be using confirmation bias to get their views across. The talk page also mentions, as I did, that there is a tone that seems to say there is nothing wrong about this, or that it's a good thing. The facts and numbers seem to be the same as we discussed and read in class, but it comes across much more pro whereas the book comes across more anti. It's rated as a starting article that could use a lot of work. The grammar seems to be correct as does the layout, but the photos could be different in order to be more productive.

Wiki Project
-Added citation to "exploitation of women in mass media" -Added information and citations underneath "effects on society" -Changed some wording for clarity -Revised paragraph and facts as they were not backed by facts. Rewrote with new citation that accommodated statement.