User:Njpierce16/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
 * Shallow focus


 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead section:
 * The lead section has a decent introductory sentence (two sentences in this case). It describes the topic concisely and also outlines its function in photography and cinematography. The lead doesn't outline the contents beside having the little navigation box below the paragraph. However, there aren't many sections.
 * Content:
 * The content in the article is sparse. Not everything in the "overview" section feels relevant to a potential reader. The content under the details page is relevant but sparse, not expanding beyond a basic description of how to achieve the effect. There is a single example in a filmic context provided, but the film mentioned (The Rules of the Game, 1939) is pretty obscure, so its inclusion might do more to confuse a reader than anything else. More examples from notable films would benefit the article. In the "start" class article on deep focus, there is a list of notable examples and a few other sections detailing that technique's uses and history, which this article could incorporate. There is no mention of underrepresented topics in this article.
 * Tone and Balance:
 * The content under the "Overview" section feel strange. It doesn't feel neutral or informative, offering an odd description of the technique as a "means by which low-budget filmmakers use to hide places that would require expensive props". This almost feels like opinion instead of fact and is reductive of a technique that is now extremely common even in high-budget filmmaking. The article also labels extremely-shallow focus as "bokeh-porn", which is once again reductive and dismissive. The source they cite to back up the "bokeh-porn" claim appears to be a blog-post from an assistant professor named Anne. For some reason the content in this section feels like it was written by someone with a negative outlook on the topic. It's almost persuasive enough for someone to think twice about using the technique to avoid seeming pretentious (in this article's eyes).
 * Sources and References:
 * The writer neglects to cite any sources for the content under the "Details" tab, which appears to be legitimate but isn't supported by reference. I assume the content comes from the Film Production Technique book cited in the bibliography but I can't be sure. As I mentioned above, one of the sources referenced seems to be a blog from an assistant professor and the post is an option piece on bokeh being a "visual-fetish" which doesn't warrant inclusion in a fact-based article. The final reference is another book but it's hard to trust this source because it is legitimately a book about ghost hunting, not bokeh... so yeah. I almost wonder if someone switched the original source to the ghost one. I found a few sources through Google that offer a more comprehensive take on the technique.
 * Organization and Writing Quality:
 * The organization is logical but under-developed. The quality of writing is decent aside from the biased tone in the "Overview" Section. There aren't glaring errors in grammar or organization.
 * Images and Media:
 * One of the pictures included is useful as it shows subject in and out of the plane of focus and the accompanying caption describes this effectively. The other one is not a clear enough example to be good visual aid. The picture of an autumn scene in Japan is aesthetically pleasing but the blur of the background isn't exaggerated enough to be a good example especially when bokeh is mentioned so much in the rest of the article. They all seem to be CC though.
 * Talk Page Discussion:
 * The conversations going on behind the scenes were related to the film example used (The Rules of the Game, 1939) and whether or not the shot in question was even an example of shallow focus. One user even includes a link to examples they think better highlight the technique. Apparently there was originally a photo used from the film but there wasn't any fair use justification so it must have been removed. It is rated stub-class currently within the scope of WikiProjects Film. The discussion seemed fairly efficient and civil, there was evidence of users evaluating the content and offering constructive feedback.
 * Overall Impression:
 * The article is under-baked and oddly biased in one section. The strengths are its organization, attention to grammar, and quality of writing. However, the article needs more information and more sources, particularly notable ones as I wouldn't count the current sources as such.


 * Sources:
 * https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/shallow-depth-of-field.html https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/shallow-focus/
 * https://www.colesclassroom.com/what-is-the-difference-between-deep-focus-vs-shallow-focus/

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Woodland Park, Colorado


 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead Section:
 * -Introductory sentence is informative if a bit wordy and conceptual, detailing Woodland Park as a home rule municipality, which I didn't realize was a thing despite living in Colorado for 14 years.
 * - The article outlines the major sections in a "Contents" bubble but doesn't describe them in the lead section.
 * - The municipality information in the lead section is not present in the rest of the article. The fact of WP being a bedroom community also is not addressed further in the article.
 * -I would say this lead is overly detailed and doesn't do a great job outlining the rest of the article, offering information that isn't addressed later on.
 * Content:
 * - The content is generally relevant to the topic aside from a half-assed "Arts and Culture" section that makes a claim about a number of full-time musicians living in town and frequent arts festivals without attempting to explain the situation further.
 * - The content is out of date, with recent census and demographic info from 2010 and otherwise few dates to ascertain relevance.
 * - As mentioned, the "Arts" Section contains dubious information aside from the mention of the Dinosaur Museum. There is content missing in a number of areas such as culture, economy, government, and education, to name a few. It needs to be fleshed out more.
 * - The article does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.
 * Tone and Balance:
 * - The article reads as neutral
 * - There aren't claims appearing to be heavily-biased, most of it reads as factual reporting
 * - There really isn't any representation of anyone besides white people but given that 95% of the town is white people, that doesn't surprise me. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to stay that way, I know a bunch of people from that town who aren't white, more representation would do it good
 * - I didn't any encounter any super fringe viewpoints, although the "Climate" seems pretty questionable in its reliability
 * - There really weren't any major persuasive elements
 * Sources and References:
 * - The facts in the article are not all cited, which calls much into question. Most of the sections lack any kind of citation, so it's hard to know what reliable, if any.
 * - The sources are mostly just statistical sources from state government or census resources. There is one article that appears more recent about elections but it isn't incorporated into the main article.
 * - The main sources are sort of current in that they are regularly updated government databases, but the information from them in the articles is old news
 * -There is little diversity, if any, apparent in the source "authors"
 * - A Google search revealed more up to date website articles detailing the more recent developments in the towns history, so I'm pretty sure no one has put any effort into updating the page rather rather than information being too scarce
 * -The links work, but they're mostly to larger government databases
 * Organizational and writing quality:
 * - It is well-written
 * - There weren't any drastic grammatical mistakes that caught my eye
 * -It's organized acceptably, although the climate section should come earlier near geography and the gallery section should be at the end I think
 * Images and Media:
 * -The images in the gallery are mostly of Pikes Peak, which granted is the most impressive thing about the town, but not what the article itself is about. The other accompanying images are effective, the geographical images delineate the town's location well.
 * - The captions are serviceable
 * - The images appear to be CC or Public domain
 * - The images are mostly just there, I don't know if I'd say visually appealing
 * Talk Page discussion:
 * -The talk page has one discussion about "Ute Pass" and the specific designation of the canyon which US Highway 24 runs through. The user mentions that calling it something else might "confuse locals", so I assume the person in that thread wasn't a "local". It makes me wonder who would want to contribute to a Wiki about a tiny town where you haven't lived
 * -It is rated as "start class" in WikiProjects: Cities, United States/Colorado, and Mountains.
 * - There are only two, but they seem organized how we talked in class. The user indented and signed.
 * Overall Impression:
 * -The overall status is probably accurately classed at start class. There is some basic statistical information and a good amount of information on other topics that sounds legit but isn't cited so it's hard to know
 * -The article desperately needs citations, and simply more topics to give a better representation of the town wouldn't hurt
 * - I'd say its still underdeveloped
 * Sources:
 * https://www.uncovercolorado.com/towns/woodland-park/
 * https://hashtagcoloradolife.com/woodland-park-colorado/
 * https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/teller-county
 * http://www.utepasshistoricalsociety.org/ute-pass-history/

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Pannenkoek (it's not a swear word, I swear)


 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead Section:
 * -The introductory sentence is clear and concise
 * -There is no description of sections because the article doesn't really have sections, its mostly one big section with a number of paragraphs, aside from a "regional variants" section.
 * Content:
 * -The content is all relevant, detailing the process of making the dish and how it is served in the Netherlands where it supposedly originated
 * -There aren't dates anywhere but I assume its mostly up to date considering the recipes have probably been around longer than Wikipedia
 * - It's missing sections such as etymology, traditions (although there is some information about traditions), history, etc.
 * - As far as underrepresented topics, there is a mention of colonization (but it is just a pancake after all) and a variation of the pancake served in South Africa
 * Tone and Balance:
 * - The article seems neutral
 * -There is no heavy bias
 * - There is no over or underrepresented viewpoints in my opinion
 * -No fringe viewpoints unless there's some crazy pancake bandit I don't know about spreading misinformation
 * -As far as persuasion there is a sentence describing cinnamon and sugar melting into the warm and soft treat which makes me want one and I definitely think the whole thing is biased towards them tasting good
 * - I suppose some of the language in the description of the recipe and cooking process could come across as somewhat informal or "homie" but I don't know to what extent that's a bad thing
 * Sources and References:
 * -There is very little citation, and only one actual source in the bibliography. I have no idea to what extent any of the information in the article comes from that source, so that's a problem
 * - The one source listed is a random cookbook with one recipe for Pannenkoek, which is pretty dubious
 * -That source is from 2006
 * - There are some other sources online but honestly I see why this is a hard stub to improve as I imagine many other food-related ones would be. Most of the other sources are individual recipes with their own little family traditions or blog posts about the dish, but it's hard to find concrete information
 * Organization and Writing quality:
 * - The article is well written, the description of the recipe almost reads like you could make it yourself. The problem content-wise is that it's probably one family's take on it rather than a standard or empirical method
 * - There weren't any huge grammatical errors, however the writing in the second section "Regional variants" does come across as from a different author because it is written somewhat less competently
 * - It's definitely not organized. It sort of just flows forth and the lack of sections means it's just one big jumble of words.
 * Images and Media :
 * - Given the delicious topic at hand, it's surprising that there's only one mediocre picture of a pannenkoek with bacon in it
 * -The one image does come from CC
 * Talk page discussion:
 * - The talk page discussion is lengthier than the article. There appears to be a debate about how to spell pannenkoek (vs. Pannekoek) with a couple Dutch people contributing their knowledge. It's quite interesting to see the debate and how much people can get impassioned by the spelling of something that apparently can be spelled both ways...
 * - The article is a stub under Food and Drink and Netherlands WikiProjects
 * - The Discussions in this talk page are somewhat informal, some more than others, but still adhere to the indent/sign format
 * Overall Impression:
 * - It's hard for me to definitively say this article could be improved a great deal more without finding more significant resources, and I'm not sure if a sufficient amount of those exist.
 * -The article needs citation, and it may benefit from a number of different takes on how to make a Pannenkoek or some way to accommodate a recipe that has probably evolved within households over the years. It definitely an etymology section and a history section.
 * -It's underdeveloped, but, again, I don't know how much development is possible. It's not an expansive subject in general


 * Sources
 * https://sharmanmedia.nl/are-pannenkoeken-really-dutch/

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources