User:Michaelmacgregor/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Travel Channel is the article I chose to evaluate
 * It is a short article, but seems to use good, relevant information
 * It is a part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Television, Wikiproject Media, and Wikiproject Top Model
 * I'm unsure what this article has to do with the Wikiproject Top Model because it there is no mention of Top Model in the article.
 * There are points that have a lot of facts without much citation, and the nearest citation takes you to an error page, not any real article or page.
 * The author of one section used the phrase "..., presumably to..." which seems like a sort-of point of view or assumption (not rooted in fact). It draws a correlation between 2 things that has no real evidence to support it (again with no citation)
 * It feels like it is missing something -- maybe some examples of the shows they produce, their ratings, viewership, demographics of viewers.
 * The article is up to date and well written, but could use some development of content. There is a lot of info about trade deals and how the travel channel has moved in the tv production industry, but there is not really any info on anything else.
 * A lot of the citations don't completely work -- they take you to the correct website, but don't bring you to the article they are trying to cite or just give error pages. Citations 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 all don't take you to the article they intended to cite.

Potential Topics

 * Travel Channel
 * Things missing from page
 * Examples of shows they produce (at least the ones with the best ratings, but maybe even a list of all shows they run)
 * More info on the channel's ratings and how it has changed over the years
 * Info on viewership (I've already added a few sentences on it, but there could definitely be more)
 * Add demographic information of viewers (who is the typical travel channel watcher?)
 * Attack ad
 * There is info on US and Mexico, but nothing on other countries
 * It only discusses television attack ads.. Not sure if this exists but is there anything to be said about different forms of attack ads among media
 * It doesn't discuss statistics on how they are typically used among different groups. Is one group more likely to use attack ads than another?
 * Media consumption
 * There is a lot that could be added to the positive and negative effects section
 * Positive
 * educational purposes
 * creativity
 * Negative
 * how it effects mental health (article for class)
 * how it effects social development
 * how things like aggressive video games or music effect personality
 * Types of media
 * add section about what exactly defines media and what type of media people consume
 * Types of media consumption and how it is different among age groups
 * how media consumption has changed over the years
 * Maybe a section on the implications of media consumption for the future

Final Topic: Attack ad
Elmelund-PrÃ¦stekÃ¦r, Christian. “Beyond American Negativity: toward a General Understanding of the Determinants of Negative Campaigning.” European Political Science Review, vol. 2, no. 01, 2010, p. 137., doi:10.1017/s1755773909990269.
 * Potential/Intended contributions:
 * Add information about attack ads in other countries (not US/Mexico)
 * Discuss different types of attack ads among media platforms
 * How political affiliation correlates to use of attack ads (?)
 * Restrictions on attack ads
 * he effect of negative campaigning on voter turn out
 * Current Bibliography:

Grossmann, Matt. “What (or Who) Makes Campaigns Negative?” American Review of Politics, vol. 33, 2012, p. 1., doi:10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2012.33.0.1-22.

Krupnikov, Yanna. “When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 55, no. 4, 2011, pp. 797–813., doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00522.x.

Walter, Annemarie S., and Rens Vliegenthart. “Negative Campaigning across Different Communication Channels: Different Ball Games?” The International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 15, no. 4, 2010, pp. 441–461., doi:10.1177/1940161210374122.

Walter, Annemarie S. “Negative Campaigning in Western Europe: Similar or Different?” Political Studies, vol. 62, no. 1_suppl, 2013, pp. 42–60., doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12084.

First Draft
* there is a random sentence in the introduction that says US attack ads have led to an increase in attack ads in Canadian election, but does not cite a source- I have found conflicting evidence from a reputable source, and think this line should be deleted to not confuse readers*

good idea Erickaakcire (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Section about Canadian attack ads:

Although it has been found that Canadian elections are less likely to use attack ads than US elections, there is still remains a strong presence of negative ads in Canadian campaigns. Comparatively, Canadians were more likely to use acclaim ads- or ads that praise another individual- than Americans, as American campaigns are much more likely to use attack ads than Canadian campaigns. Overall, however, Canadian campaigns are more likely to use attack ads than acclaim ads, similarly to the US.

need to fix citation to proxied URL, use accessible URL to abstract Erickaakcire (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition of different types of (political) attack ads:

Political attack ads across all types of media can have different strategic aims. Some are character attacks, trying to persuade the viewer to think differently about a candidates character in hopes that they will reconsider their perception of the candidate and who they are as a person. Another strategy is an attack on the candidates' policy or political ideas. This attempts to derail one's support for a candidate by persuading them that the candidate-under-attack's political ideas are illogical or will be ineffective.

avoid using second person (you) Erickaakcire (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition about effect on voter turn out:

Studies suggest that attack ads have no effect on voter turn out in the United States. There is, in fact, a noted negative impact on voter turnout by some researches, but it has no bearing on the evidence as it is statistically insignificant. The only case in which evidence reveals a correlation between negative advertising and voter turnout is for "late" negativity. This is when two conditions exist for the voter: they have already selected their preferred candidate and the attack and the negativity is about their selected candidate. If these two conditions exist, there is a negative effect on voter turnout. In this case, a forty percent increase in "late" negative ads will decrease the likelihood of turnout by 0.087, and a sixty percent increase in late ads merits a 0.145 decrease in turnout. Thus, the only case in which attack ads have been found to effect on voter turn out is when the voter has already selected their candidate, as they realize that their candidate is potentially no better than the alternative options.

Peer Review:
Think about your tone. You seem to be writing well but the tone doesn't feel encyclopedic. Also in your second section, you discuss attack ads as though they can only be used in political campaigns by individuals targeting individuals. While I can believe that that is the majority of attack ads, it's not the only way attack ads are used (Think about ads against propositions, against companies, against products, etc). You should mention that what you are discussing is ONE type of attack ad and you should specify its exact parameters.

In your third section, you say "a noted negative impact on voter turnout." By saying "negative" it makes the statement biased. You might consider saying something like "some researchers have noted a negative impact on voter turn out." Similarly, later on when you claim that it has "no bearing on the evidence as it is statistically insignificant." This sounds like your own thesis and Wikipedia isn't a place for proving your point. By using "thus" in your final sentence you are making your own conclusions so try to avoid language like that. In general, you should rework your last section. It reads like a research paper, not an encyclopedia. It needs to present information, not provide your interpretations of your own research.

Good luck with your edits, grammar and spelling seem fine to me but tone and phrasing is your main challenge.

Hilde den Hellige (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Feedback
Things to consider:
 * I will definitely be revising my encyclopedic tone to reflect a more unbiased and objective stance
 * to do this, I will make sure to take out any language that makes it read like a research paper. Instead, I will take out any "fluff" and make it more objective
 * Add a citation to the second section (somehow I missed that) and make sure the link is proxied on the first citation
 * take out the use of second person (second section)
 * make it more clear that I am speaking specifically about political attack ads (that is what I researched)
 * I don' think the use of the word "negative" in the final section denoted biased. The use of "negative" is to indicate the fact voter turn out is decreased, and I go on to provide the information that the study showed statistic insignificance. It is not a thesis, but rather a report of the evidence researched.
 * I think the use of "thus" is justified because it is used to summarize the section in a clear and concise sentence, leaving the reader with a true understanding of the topic.

Michaelmacgregor (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)