User:Megan rose28/sandbox

Final draft of contributions to Wikipedia article on Skippyjon Jones
Underline is an addition I made to already existing content on the article page.

Skippyjon Jones is a children's picture book series by Judith Byron Schachner. The first book was published in 2001 2003 by Dutton Juvenile. It is the first book in a series of the same name. The books are notable for their popularity amongst children, use of bilingualism, and controversy over their representation of Latinos.

Final Version:

Skippyjon Jones is a children's picture book series by Judith Byron Schachner. The first book was published in 2003 by Dutton Juvenile. The books are notable for their popularity amongst children, use of bilingualism, and controversy over their representation of Latinos.

Summary [created new section based off of parts from lead in og article]
The title character, Skippyjon Jones , is a Siamese cat with unusually large ears and an equally large head. Since he doesn't look like his mother and sisters, he thinks that he is a Chihuahua. He has a group of imaginary Chihuahua friends, Los Chimichangos. He lives with his mother, Junebug, and his three sisters Jezebel, Jillyboo, and Jujube. The stories follow Skippyjon Jones on his various adventures.

Final Version:

The title character, Skippyjon Jones, is a Siamese cat with unusually large ears and an equally large head. Since he doesn't look like his mother and sisters, he thinks that he is a Chihuahua. He has a group of imaginary Chihuahua friends, Los Chimichangos. He lives with his mother, Junebug, and his three sisters Jezebel, Jillyboo, and Jujube. The stories follow Skippyjon Jones on his various adventures.

Books [new section/final version]
Skippyjon Jones is published under Penguin Random House within its Dutton Juvenile division.

Analysis [new section/final version]
The series is highly rated on Amazon by parents and teachers, but reviews are peppered with critiques of Skippyjon Jones’ depiction of Latinos and use of mock Spanish. Due to its stereotypes, the series is ranked 8 on the American Library Association's list of top challenged books for 2018. Amy Senta, an early childhood professor described a moment reading one of the books when a Latino child remarked he thought the book was mocking him. Following this experience, she analyzed the books and summarized them as demeaning Mexicans through characterization, improper use of language, and the enforcement of a “white savior” modality. Particularly, the Spanish used is oftentimes incorrect and can mislead non-Spanish speakers into believing a word is Spanish due to the addition of Spanish articles and endings. Another analysis states Skippyjon Jones and his chihuahua friends are humanized and given traits symbolic of Latinos. Through this depiction and anthropomorphization, the characters are seen as substitutes for "racial and ethnic identities," a representation invoking "tokenism."

However, these critiques are criticized for advocating censorship of the books and projecting ideas of racism into a children’s series. There is discussion regarding the roles of these books in children's literature due to their wide success, Schachner's claims they are intended for education, and the representation of Latinos.

Reception [new section]
Bold means the content was in the original article.

'In 2004, Skippyjon Jones'' won the first annual E. B. White Read Aloud Award, handed out by The Association of Booksellers for Children. It has also  Also, it has won several local children's book awards, including the New Hampshire State Library's 2005 Ladybug Picture Book Award, the 2005 Washington Children's Choice Picture Book Award, and the 2006 Colorado Council International Reading Association (CCIRA) Colorado Children's Book Award for Picture Book. Based on a 2007 online poll, the National Education Association named the book one of its "Teachers' Top 100 Books for Children". Jerry Griswold in a  A New York Times review said''' Skippyjon Jones is a bilingual book of fun similar to a Ulysses for kids.

Final Version:

Reviews of the books are generally good highlighting the adventurous tales and varied descriptive language used throughout. In 2004, Skippyjon Jones won the first annual E. B. White Read Aloud Award, handed out by The Association of Booksellers for Children. Also, it has won several local children's book awards, including the New Hampshire State Library's 2005 Ladybug Picture Book Award, the 2005 Washington Children's Choice Picture Book Award, and the 2006 Colorado Council International Reading Association (CCIRA) Colorado Children's Book Award for Picture Book. Based on a 2007 online poll, the National Education Association named the book one of its "Teachers' Top 100 Books for Children". A New York Times review said Skippyjon Jones is a bilingual book of fun similar to a Ulysses for kids.

Theatre Production [new section/final version]
Following commercial success, Skippyjon Jones and Skippyjon Jones: Snow What were both adapted into musical productions. In both 2011 and 2014, Theatreworks USA put on productions of Skippyjon Jones at the Pittsburgh International Children's Theater and various other locations in Pittsburgh. The performances received good reviews, stating the show was enjoyable for all ages. In 2016, the H. Ric Luhrs Performing Arts Center in Shippensburg, PA hosted a production of Skippyjon Jones: Snow What that was commended for its set design and performance.

Evaluating content
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The content regarding magnetic declination is distracting and there is a general lack of content.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps. I think there is room for much improvement in the body of this article further discussing the content of the journal and the history of it being lost and subsequent translation more fully by Bartholomé de las Casas.

What else could be improved? The article is generally wordy and has grammatical errors. Also, perhaps there should be a section on the accuracy of the piece as a source of primary literature and some more of the controversy on this.

Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article? No, however there is a picture of the journal which is good.

Evaluating tone
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article is generally unbiased for what it contains.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article is generally representative for what it contains and the subject matter.

Evaluating sources
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? There are three linked names with no wikipedia articles. Three of four citations work; however, one of them is a book so its ISBN is provided.

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? For example, does the writer use signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information? There are only four citations and one of them is from a Russian blog.

One caveat is that an external link exists to what is available of the journal.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is no information on the talk page.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is C-class and part of the WikiProject History.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We didn't really discuss the topic of Columbu's journal in class.

Lead
The lead is lengthy with the last sentence of the initial paragraph being unnecessary for the portion of the article. It would better fit under a character description.

Background
There is no explicit background section. Within the genre classification portion there is much that could be restructured into the background, specifically her inspiration in American Puritan history.

Summary
The summary is wordy towards the beginning and presents some bias in its choice of words.

Genre
There is a large section depicting the genre of book this falls in, but there are large block quotes which contradict Wikipedia guidelines. Also it intermixes with what should be background on why Atwood wrote the book.

Analysis
There is not a specific analysis section. There is an analysis underlying the entire article however, specifically within the setting and intermixed with the reception portions. Additionally by using the article “White-washing Oppression in Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale” by Ben Merriman it could add to the already existing portion on Feminist Reading and Race. This would fill in the existing gap on erasure in the novel. However, the existing portions are currently in the different reception categories and should be moved to analysis. Also, an addition using Rule’s “Not Fading into another Landscape: Spectors of American Empire in Atwood’s Fiction” would contribute to the analysis of Atwood’s work being related to Native American history too.

example of Merriman addition:

Ben Merriman, a professor at the University of Kansas, is critical of Atwood’s erasure of African Americans in the novel and notes her actions exemplify white-privilege.

example of Rule addition:

Rule focuses on the body of Atwood’s work and emphasizes its connections to Native Americans. Because of this I would include a critique by Tule in Atwood’s own Wikipedia article and not The Handmaid’s Tale.

Publication
Publication details are included in the infobox on the first edition but there is not information within the article on various other editions.

Reception
There are multiple sections on reception, but the reception portions aren’t necessarily in line with the Wikipedia guidelines and many of them should go under analysis. Specifically, there is a table of the awards the book has received and a general description of discussion it’s academic reception. These two sections on critical reception and academic need to be restructured so there is one that is analysis based and one solely on reception. Also, there is one sentence covering race in the novel when there is much discussion over racism and sexism and their connection to this novel. This portion deserved both acknowledgement in the analysis and also in how it has been received by the public in its disregard.

Others
There is a section on the different adaptations and a sequel portion.

Infobox
There is an infobox.

Article Evaluation: Fun Home
The article is well done and deservedly ranks as a feature article on Wikipedia. When compared to the page on The Handmaid's Tale, Fun Home is better organized with a thorough lead; however, this lead includes information regarding the musical which has its own page itself. Although the main Fun Home page does reference and have a section regarding the musical, at this point due to the prestige of the play I think there should just be a redirect section to the musical's page and not a full description of it. Also, the summary itself should be the plot summary and then the thematic and allusion portions should be delegated to their own section, perhaps on analysis. Additionally, the section on publication and reception is clearly better than The Handmaid's Tale in having a section but I think publication and reception should be split into two. The reception portion also includes the challenges and there is a pretty lengthy sentence regarding every party who has signed onto a letter which to some extent is unnecessary.

Three Part Evaluation
In the genre section of The Handmaid's Tale there is excessive usage of quotes and block quotes. This contradicts Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically covered in Editing Wikipedia of avoiding direct quotes and utilizing paraphrasing. In order to solve this issue the block quotes should be deleted and reduced to paraphrased sentences cited correctly to sources. If no sources are available add "citation needed" to the statement.