User:Msmoksta/sandbox

FINAL ARTICLE ADDITION:
A growing number of women have began to incorporate the hijab into their cultural dress, whether they live in predominantly Muslim countries or not. The veil itself acts as a different experience lived by each woman who wears it, rather than a homogenizing item of clothing. Over the past ten years, the hijab has become more prominent in countries of the world where wearing the hijab itself is not required of women by state law. The willingness to wear the veil outside of required states acts as a radical statement in some instances, in a way reclaiming the symbol and meaning of the veil. Where the veil once stereotypically represented the oppression of women, it now acts as a power statement of pride in religion, femininity, and sexual identity. Feminist philosophers such as [|Luce Iriguray] also note that the veil can take on the role of empowerment regarding a women's sexual difference from man.

Msmoksta (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

DUE ON FEBRUARY 6TH: - Everyone write "Evaluation Article/Sources" in My (Msmoksta) sandbox online. - "Content Gap" assignment, print it out and bring to class. - "Sources" training online.

ARTICLE EVALUATION

Makenzie Smokstad - Topic: High-heeled Footwear As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these): Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- Everything in the article is relevant to the topic and I really enjoyed the different subsets between time periods regarding fashion, different medical studies regarding high-heeled shoes, and the feminist attitude towards heels. Nothing specifically distracted me; however, the article leans more towards women readers because after the 'Feminist Attitudes' subset there is no category that relates to men, drag queens, or even opposing-feminist views. On the other hand however, within the 'Feminist Attitudes' section there is a small paragraph regarding 'A Mile in Her Shoes' showcasing a protest where heterosexual men where heels to promote activism against domestic violence. The links throughout the article work (except for 1, which is also noted in the 'Talk' section of the article) and lead to other useful Wiki pages which is a really cool and beneficial feature. 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?

= Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? = - Each fact is referenced with reliable sources, for example - in the beginning section of the article, the editor states, "High heels make the wearer taller, accentuating the calf muscle and the length of the leg overall.[1]" - and the source referenced comes from a Medical Journal of Physical Therapy regarding muscle activation while wearing different types of shoes. The sources used throughout the article are useful and unbiased for the most part, until the section titled 'Feminist Attitudes' - however, throughout the section the bias is unnoticed. Although the sources are strictly feminist scholars, the information is factual and objective. Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

- The 'Talk' page has a lot of useful comments left throughout multiple years and the article is consistently updated because the last update was January 28th, 2018. The common thing throughout the 'Talk' page was comments about making specific categories throughout the article too opinionated, or not offering an opposing category for the 'Feminist Attitudes' section.

- This article is related to class because it deals with a component of fashion that is hegemonically and stereotypically created and intended for female use. This specific article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion which is a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fashion as a whole on Wikipedia. We've briefly read about the use of high-heeled shoes in the Bartky reading, but the article does a more in depth overview of the history of the shoe, rather than in specific relation to stereotypical, gendered behavioral choices. Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page, minimum three sentences. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Msmoksta (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC). - My question for the talk page: Relating to the 'Feminist Attitudes' category, has there ever been consideration to incorporate more information or links to feminist scholar work? In addition to that, would you ever consider adding a subset category of opposing feminist attitudes toward high-heeled shoes? I feel this category gives a very brief perspective when this section could go far more in depth.

(I left my 'Talk' comment under the "Opinionated" comment section)

---

Jordyn Hack

ARTICLE EVALUATION - "Platform Shoes"

 'Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?' 

Everything in this article about platform shoes was very relevant and connected well with each other. I really enjoyed the timeline and visual aids in the history of platform shoes dating back to as early as Ancient Greece. This Wikipedia page was not biased towards a particular position because it mainly focused on the timeline of the shoe and how it was developed into what we consider platform shoes to be today. This article also stayed completely neutral because in the “Notable wearers” section of the article, they included both men and women who wore the shoes, both in the past and today. I do wish, however, that there were more information about the photograph next to the ancient history section about the platform shoes that are depicted in the photograph of the maid; I feel that was a bit underrepresented.

 'Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 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? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?' 

Most of the citations listed are fairly recent, and a majority of the links work. A lot of the sources support the history of platform shoes, while also giving more insight to debates about the shoes, and more information regarding the shoes meaning. One article describes debates that have a particular bias regarding solely women who wear platform shoes. The cite quotes “She suffers and you enjoy” [11], which is directly to women. However, as the wiki article describes, women are definitely not the only ones who wear platform shoes. Again, all of the sources are very up to date, only going back to early 2000s, but I do think they could include some articles or literary pieces from earlier years, giving us more of an insight of opinions from earlier times that the platform shoe became popular or reinvented.

 'Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?' 

The “Talk” page had a lot of good conversation that differed through many years about the timeline of platform shoes. A lot of the conversations are regarding the lack of photographs that are shown in the wiki article. The article is mostly rated fairly but there is a lot of critique happening regarding certain statements in the history section of the article. This article is within the WikiProject Fashion which is a collaborative project to improve information regarding fashion that is discusses on Wikipedia. This article is very relevant to class discussions because it is concept of fashion that is mostly stereotypically discussed solely for female use. Some of the readings have touched briefly on high-heeled shoes, but this wiki article goes much deeper into the history of platform shoes, and the sources explain, in part, the meanings behind the platform shoe.

 Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page, minimum three sentences. 

My question for the “Talk”: Regarding the Wikipedia page as a whole, besides the external sources category, there is a lack of discussion about the media coverage/back lash around the platform shoes and social opinion, and uproar it may or may not have caused. Would you ever consider adding a category about media coverage and opposing views about the platform shoe over its history and development? I feel that touching on some of the sources at the bottom of the article would add more of a claim to the Wikipedia article as a whole. Jordynh (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(I left my comment under the 'Assessment Comment' section)

Liz Meuser - Article Evaluation
I took notes on the page for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg biography page and wrote them down in my personal sandbox. I'll repost my notes here:

Notes on Wiki article on Ruth Bader Ginsburg: As for the question I asked in the Talk page, I started a new Talk section in which I asked if they considered/ suggested that they add more up to date elements in their popular culture section about the growing market of dissent collar necklaces emulating her dissent jabot as well as the recent fitness book published by her personal trainer documenting her workout regimen. I already received a response from the main editor of that page! ~
 * article has the green 'good article' tag — is listed as a Wiki article under the social sciences and society good articles category, is also considered of interest to multiple WikiProjects
 * citation links work — cites a variety of sources all from reputable sources (mix of newspaper interviews, books, etc.)
 * the article is very much of a neutral tone and perspective — is in that regard very much like a standard biography
 * discussion of the cases she argued is written in a manner that focuses on the specific facts of the cases and outcomes, there is no indication of biased claim or tone favoring one outcome or specific position regarding the nature of the case and/or the social issue it was touching upon (i.e. gender equality, abortion etc.)
 * strikes a good balance in the viewpoints it represents — collection of quotes/commentary from RBG herself, former colleagues, newspaper commentators, legal scholars etc.
 * All information is up to date. Even includes a blurb about Kate McKinnon's portrayal of RBG on SNL and recent updates of a screenplay and documentary about her — might suggest adding some things to pop culture section that I know of and realized weren't mentioned
 * On the Talk page there is lots of discussion about proper language and description of case summaries, making sure legal terminology/explanation is correct and suggestions about changing certain phrases and word choice to make it sound more neutral

= Peer Review: Emily B = Hi! I like what you added about justice RBG. However, I am a bit confused on what I am actually editing in this sandbox. When I clicked on the sandbox, the topic was Islamic feminism, but someone edited in this sandbox about platform shoes. So my question is, is this the sandbox for the topic Islamic feminism or platform shoes? Either way, RBG in any of those topics are great! ~

Makenzie Smokstad - Article Revision Draft
Kenzie Smokstad:

I'm also interested in discussing the reclaiming of the meaning of the veil, specifically with Muslim women today and how the meaning of the veil has changed throughout time. I plan to do this through the work of Anne Emmanuelle-Berger, of which I've read academic journals from for other gender studies classes. The specific source is titled, "The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and the Islamic Veil" I enjoyed reading through this piece and I feel it will add relevant insight to the article because Emmanuelle-Berger touches on aspects of reclaiming the veil even before the modern era of the 2000s. Msmoksta (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ORIGINAL ADDITIONS (DRAFT):

A growing number of women have began to incorporate the hijab into their cultural dress, whether they live in predominantly Muslim countries or not. The veil itself acts as a different experience lived by each woman who wears it, rather than a homogenizing item of clothing. Over the past ten years, the hijab has become more prominent in countries of the world where wearing the hijab itself is not required of women by state law. The willingness to wear the veil outside of required states acts as a radical statement in some instances, in a way reclaiming the symbol and meaning of the veil. Where the veil once stereotypically represented the oppression of women, it now acts as a power statement of pride.

~