User:Ngdana/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Community Organizing


 * Article Evaluation
 * Overall, this article has a lot of mistakes and is not written in a neutral perspective.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * This article's content focuses on the historical and political context of community organizing. Though it is important, it should not be the majority/entirety of the article, as it skews readers away from the actual topic of community organizing. This article should contain actual content about community-organizing. This means methods, general practice models, theories behind community-organizing as those who come to this page probably want to understand what is community-organizing and how it is executed. There should also be information on different types of community-organizing, as each type is centered around a different goal/community, and how these goals shift the general practice model & discourses on community-organizing. Though there is content on the different types of community-organizing, the headings are confusing, as faith-based organizing or political-based organizing can also be grassroots organizing; they're not completely separate entities. I also observe that the author put a section on "what community-organizing is not." Though I did find this section insightful, the lack of information on what community-organizing is leaves readers confused.
 * Some of the content is also not up-to-date as the information are derived from sources from the 1980s.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * My impression coming into this article would be learning about the actual practice of community-organizing (techniques, how these techniques shifts depending on the goal of the organizers), but this article talks more about the politics and the political atmosphere of community organizing events. Though I understand, the importance of political context as it was the catalyzer of community-organizing, it should not be the majority of the article. It should just support the practice models, theories, perspectives on community organizing itself.
 * It is extremely biased, because a lot of the examples and significant events mentioned in thee article are liberal/radical community-organizing. Though it does make sense, since community-organizing focuses on empowering marginalized communities, completely ignoring community-organizing at the other end of the political spectrum is biased.
 * Though this article as a neutral point of view on democratic community-organizing, there is a lack of content on republican community organizing. The article emphasizes that community-organizing is not politically driven, but I find that hard to believe because the article focuses on targeted marginalized communities. Though republican community-organizing may not be a popular topic, it should be mentioned in the article to keep a neutral point of view. This article also is completely biased in the historical sections. It feels like I'm reading a political agenda.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not all sections have citations, for example, "Intermediate Institutions."
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * As mentioned earlier, the article is biased, hence the references are also biased. Titles like: Reveille for Radicals, Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy, Roots for Radicals, are politically biased.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Yes there are coverage of marginalized communities.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * Conversations in the talk page emphasize the need for this article to be rewritten and re-organized. Many also express feeling like they are reading a "political agenda."


 * Sources
 * Brady, Shane R., and Mary Katherine O’Connor. “Understanding How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change: The Beginning Development of Formal Practice Theory.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 22, no. 1-2, 2014, pp. 210–228., doi:10.1080/10705422.2014.901263.
 * Bradshaw, Catherine P., et al. “Toward a Hybrid Model for Effective Organizing in Communities of Color.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, 1994, pp. 25–42., doi:10.1300/j125v01n01_03.
 * Fisher, Robert, and Eric Shragge. “Challenging Community Organizing.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 8, no. 3, 2000, pp. 1–19., doi:10.1300/j125v08n03_01.
 * Erbaugh, Elizabeth B. “Women's Community Organizing and Identity Transformation.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 9, no. 1, 2002, pp. 8–32.
 * Gutierrez, Lorraine M., and Edith A. Lewis. “Community Organizing with Women of Color:” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, 1994, pp. 23–44., doi:10.1300/j125v01n02_03.
 * Emejulu, A. “Re-Theorizing Feminist Community Development: towards a Radical Democratic Citizenship.” Community Development Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, 2011, pp. 378–390., doi:10.1093/cdj/bsr032.
 * Christens, B.D. “Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: relational intervention for individual and systems change.” J. Community Psychol., vol. 38, 2010, pp. 886-900. https://doi-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1002/jcop.20403 . Accessed 6 Feb. 2021.
 * Sandoval, Gerardo, and Jane Rongerude. “Telling a Story That Must Be Heard: Participatory Indicators as Tools for Community Empowerment.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 23, no. 3-4, 2015, pp. 403–414., doi:10.1080/10705422.2015.1091417.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Feminist Economics


 * Article Evaluation
 * Overall, this article has intentions of a neutral perspective, however the author's diction choice and lack of coverage on counter-perspectives skews the article towards a feminist economists' approach.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * This article starts off with a historical upbringing of feminist economics and then a section of what exactly the field critiques in traditional economics. Though there are multiple things that feminist economics critiques in traditional economics the overarching theme is extreme exertion of patriarchal and masculine ideologies, disproportionately stigmatizing and marginalizing women from the wealth of the labor market and capitalism. Following the section of critiques, there is a section on what frameworks, practices, and ideologies feminist economists are pushing to engender the field of economics as well as a section methodologies, data collection tools. This article gives an unbiased holistic overview on what exactly feminist economics is about.
 * The content is up-to-date, with the most recent source as 2014, but isn't as up-to-date as it could be. There has been new research and scholarly articles released about building a sense of agency for women and pushing for women empowerment, a recent proposed solution to the problem of women economic inequality.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * As stated before, the tone is neutral and informative. The section that critiques traditional economics gives sufficient information on the ideologies of traditional economics and its limitations on gender and racial equality. Following that section it gives frameworks, theories, approaches on feminist economics.
 * Though the tone is not biased or persuasive, I do wish there was more positive background on traditional economics. Though it is intuitive to critique traditional economics as this article is highlighting its dichotomy, I believe reviewing traditional economics in its own critique section skews towards a more biased viewpoint.
 * As a follow up to my last point, any criticism section has a tendency to put down a certain viewpoint. But since thee points made in that section are fairly important to the discussion of feminist economics, I would suggest renaming and rewriting the section to something that is more focused on giving a holistic historical background on traditional economics.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes! For each section and sub-section, the topic sentence is cited.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, the literatures come from academic journals and are up to date with the most recent 2015.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Yes, this article talks about gender bias, gender inequality, and the marginalization of women from economic wealth.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The talk page is very quiet and limited, but those that have expressed their thoughts on the article have posted positive commentaries, only with fairly detailed and subjective critiques. An example is questioning the need for the critiques section, as criticism sections tend to compromise the neutral tone of an article.


 * Sources
 * Power, Marilyn. “Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics.” Feminist Economics, vol. 10, no. 3, 2004, pp. 3–19., doi:10.1080/1354570042000267608.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Gender Pay Gap: Motherhood


 * Article Evaluation
 * Overall, this article has intentions of a neutral perspective, however the author's diction choice and lack of coverage on counter-perspectives skews the article towards a feminist perspective. There should also be more content on the political, social, cultural ties to gender wage gap as this topic is not only an economic issue but one that is intertwined and depends on other forces.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is relevant, however I think add a section on protests and advocacy against the gender pay gap would be relevant. Also a section on the effects of the gender pay gap for example income inequality, housing inequality, demonization of mothers. Most importantly there should be section dedicated to those who do not believe in the gender pay gap and their justifications behind. This article has a broad range of economics statistics, however the topic of gender pay gap has a lot of political, cultural, and social context that should be covered.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * This article does not promote one economic policy over the other or one country's gender pay gap over the other. However there is a lack of text on the perspective of those who do not believe in the the gender pay gap. This section is important because it informs the readers on what ideologies statistics are proving wrong. Nevertheless, to name this section about "criticisms" would skew the article towards a more bias perspective. Therefore there needs to be a reformatting of this article to equally talk about those who believe in the gender pay gap and the stats behind those, and those who do not believe in it and their theories and justifications behind it. Right now this article isn't written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, for each section and sub-section, the topic sentence is cited.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, the citations come from academic journals, however are not up to date. The statistics on the wage gap are from 2015, though these statistics come out every year. The United States statistics are from CNN which is not a reliable source.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Yes, this article talks about gender bias, gender inequality, and the marginalization of women from economic wealth.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * Currently, there are only about 3 posts: one critiquing the need for inclusion of text on those who do not believe in the gender pay gap, and the other two linking articles for the author.


 * Sources
 * Abramovitz, Mimi. “Welfare Reform in the United States: Gender, Race, and Class Matter.” Critical Social Policy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2006, pp. 336–364., doi:10.1177/0261018306062589.
 * Corcoran, Mary, et al. “How Welfare Reform Is Affecting Women's Work.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 241–269., doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.241.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Women's Empowerment


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant. However there is definitely a large omission of information, especially methods and proposed approaches to crafting women empowerment (the different justifications that go with these approaches) as well as background on disempowerment.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, there is intention of neutrality. However, with a large amount of significant of information from the article, I can't really tell. For example, had there been a section of theories, approaches, debates on empowerment--possibly from different disciplines like community building, feminist organizing, etc--thee article would have a more neutral tone.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, for each section and sub-section, the topic sentence is cited.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations are up-to-date (2018), but with the inclusion of more information there would be more up-to-date sources (2020-2021). However, there are also unreliable sources from news stations who have political intentions (BBC, Taipei Times) as well as non-scholarly literature, for example from The News Minute.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Yes, this article talks about the historical implications on women (dis)empowerment, hence pushing the notion of marginalized women.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * Currently, there are only two posts: both indicating the need for a lot of work on this article. I found it really interesting how one feedback notes the need to reformat this article into a more encyclopedia format rather than just a personal essay. I believe that they're re-writing the article in a more informative tone as well as making use of headings and sub-headings.


 * Sources


 * 1) Abramovitz, Mimi. “Welfare Reform in the United States: Gender, Race, and Class Matter.” Critical Social Policy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2006, pp. 336–364., doi:10.1177/0261018306062589.
 * 2) Corcoran, Mary, et al. “How Welfare Reform Is Affecting Women's Work.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 241–269., doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.241.
 * 3) Power, Marilyn. “Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics.” Feminist Economics, vol. 10, no. 3, 2004, pp. 3–19., doi:10.1080/1354570042000267608.
 * 4) Journal of Community Practice, vol. 22, no. 1-2, 2014, pp. 210–228., doi:10.1080/10705422.2014.901263.
 * 5) Bradshaw, Catherine P., et al. “Toward a Hybrid Model for Effective Organizing in Communities of Color.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, 1994, pp. 25–42., doi:10.1300/j125v01n01_03.
 * 6) Gutierrez, Lorraine M., and Edith A. Lewis. “Community Organizing with Women of Color:” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, 1994, pp. 23–44., doi:10.1300/j125v01n02_03.
 * 7) Emejulu, A. “Re-Theorizing Feminist Community Development: towards a Radical Democratic Citizenship.” Community Development Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, 2011, pp. 378–390., doi:10.1093/cdj/bsr032.
 * 8) Christens, B.D. “Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: relational intervention for individual and systems change.” J. Community Psychol., vol. 38, 2010, pp. 886-900. https://doi-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1002/jcop.20403 . Accessed 6 Feb. 2021.
 * 9) Lamont, Michèle. “Addressing Recognition Gaps: Destigmatization and the Reduction of Inequality.” American Sociological Review, vol. 83, no. 3, June 2018, pp. 419–444, doi:10.1177/0003122418773775. Accessed 3 Feb. 2021.
 * 10) Sandoval, Gerardo, and Jane Rongerude. “Telling a Story That Must Be Heard: Participatory Indicators as Tools for Community Empowerment.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 23, no. 3-4, 2015, pp. 403–414., doi:10.1080/10705422.2015.1091417.
 * 11) East, Jean F. “Empowerment Through Welfare-Rights Organizing: A Feminist Perspective.” Affilia, vol. 15, no. 2, 2000, pp. 311–328., doi:10.1177/088610990001500212.