User:Nignaco/sandbox

Wikipedia Reflection
User:Nignaco/Report

Article Draft
User:Nignaco/palacedraft

Citing Sources
User:Nignaco/citing sources

Supreme (brand)
Rated as a "start-class" with mid-importance. As a streetwear and fashion enthusiast, I would like to improve this article by expanding on their collaborations, their impact and influence on pop culture and the underground reselling business they have sparked.

Palace Skateboards (brand)
A notable brand with no wikipage. Only mentioned as a subheading in the Baker Skateboards (another notable and worldly recognized skateboard brand). The brand has become similar to the likes of supreme and has an interesting history about how their brand has exponentially grew and made an impact on pop culture. It not having a page itself, I plan to model it similarly to the layout of the Supremes wiki page if i decide to do this topic.

== Article Evaluation ==

Evaluating Content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I believe that everything in the article is relevant to the article. Something that could be seen slightly distracting is the addition of the subsection "Women in Public Speaking." Although very educational, I believe that some would argue that this information does not belong in here rather maybe just be cited to another article under the main body of the history section.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The information is up to date because the article is mostly framed around what it is, its history and how the perception of public speaking is being talked about now therefore, the information wouldn't easily become out of date because it is nearly a static topic. The cited sources are also relatively recent and come from between 2010-present.
 * What else could be improved?
 * I believe that if they separated the History section into more subheadings it would have better flow and chronology. For example, if someone was searching for more information on Roman public speaking they would be able to refer to it quicker. Also, I believe that there could be more overall information throughout the article. For example, they list out different public speaking methods and I believe they deserve a reference or a small paragraph each expanding on that idea. When I read the article I feel like I should be able to be redirected or gain full knowledge about the topic at hand without having to revert to other sources.

Evaluating Tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The tone is neutral and purely informational.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since the articles tone is neutral, there doesn't seem to be any bias. Even though there are only two main sections in the article, in the "See Also" section, they go more in-depth on the varying types of what could be referred to as public speaking.

Evaluating Sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * All of the links work and use citations correctly as we learned in the tutorial modules. They refer to something and allow the citation to expand on their idea instead of using a source to cite it word for word. Although the majority of the citations are books, when they do use new concepts, people, events, they effectively utilize references as a form to reinforce their 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?
 * All of their fact references are appropriate and reliable although, some of the references since they come from books, they require page numbers. Also, being only rated as a Start-Class, there may be underlying issues with the sources they cite. This article could argue that the references and sources they use are unencyclopedic and incomplete. Overall though, the information comes from well known books and outlets.

Checking the Talk Page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are people arguing whether or not they should merge the oratory wiki article with this public speaking article because they believe they belong together. There has been on-going conversation about the pros and cons about this merge.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as Start-Class and listed as a level-5 vital article and is not apart of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about Public Speaking in class, but I have taken a public speaking course here at UW. Wikipedia discusses the topic at a more neutral standpoint and brushing broad strokes on what public speaking is. Where as my public speaking class went into deep analysis of what makes public speaking different from regular talking and what makes it effective with the use of examples where as this wikipedia article does not do that (yet).