User:Patrickortez/sandbox

Assigned Article (User:Patrickortez/miyamoto)
See linked article and associated talk page for information.

Citation Exercise (User:Patrickortez/miyamoto)
I added a line to the lead section briefly explaining Miyamoto Yuriko's importance with a citation to the appropriate article. I did this in my sandbox version, as I have not read widely enough to determine if the claim is sufficiently neutral and encompassing for the lead section.

Article Evaluation (Yuriko Miyamoto)
A few glaring issues strike me about this article. The first is that the name appears to be inverted (it should be Miyamoto Yuriko). Interestingly, her maiden name (Chujo Yuri) appears to be in the correct order, which bodes ill for the article's consistency. I am unable to tell how it continues, as I am unfamiliar with Japanese names. The second glaring issue is the poor lead section. Other than that she was a novelist in modern Japan, the lead tells the reader nothing.

I didn't notice any irrelevant or distracting information, what's there looks reasonable (although it needs more citations), and the structure is solid. I may have to adjust as I find more information, but I believe I should mostly be able to expand on what is already there.

All the sections are short, but the sections I found most notable were that of her death and her writings. The death section is notable as there is only one sentence, and if she was as important as this article suggests, I am certain there is more information to be had. The writings section is significant because she was an author. The section gives plot overviews of two of her earlier novels but fails to provide any other context. All her other works are given a small amount of historical information but no indications as to their subjects. None of her work is discussed in conversation with critics or other works, despite a cursory search on JSTOR showing that a number of critics have analyzed her work.

The analysis of two of her novels leans toward argumentative. It uses sentimental language and discusses major theme without any citations. The article has been flagged for lack of citations, and I imagine this would be the section reviewers noticed as well. However, the Talk Page is empty, so I cannot confirm whether this is an accurate assumption.

Overall, this is simply a new article. It is rated as start-class for good reason. It needs more information around the board, possible restructuring depending on what information is available, and a much stronger emphasis on her importance to the literary scene, with citations to back it all up.

Article Evaluation (Ray Bradbury)
Everything in the article looked relevant, and I didn't find anything distracting. Information looked up to date; however, I noticed and agreed with a number of "citation needed" flags over sections on film adaptations and awards. The biggest thing lacking in this article, however, is structure. The section on adaptations to other media is very long and filled with minimally connected ideas that are hard to follow. The Bibliography section and the Writing sections seem like they should be closer to each other, as well as like they should have some element of overlap. The Bibliography section is almost completely dedicated to his first novel and intended first novel, neglecting the other 23 novels it claims he wrote. There was no convenient way to get a list of his writings.

The tone struck me as neutral. The only possible overstatement I can envision is the claims of his fame and importance, which seem sufficiently backed up with his awards and significant quotes, such as that from President Barack Obama following Bradbury's death.

All of the citations I checked worked and indeed backed up the claim being made. However, I noticed that a large number of citations referred to newspapers and magazines. Some of them were understandable, seeing as Ray Bradbury was a writer who may have been published in those magazines; however, many of them used the news articles for data that might be better checked in another source. I did not notice any immediate bias other than that I noted previously--potential overstatements of Bradbury's cultural importance.

This article has an extensive talk page, but it has not been edited much in the last several years. It is broken into three separate archives, the most recent extending back to 2012, the year of Bradbury's death. The issues there include discrepancies in information, such as the date of his death differing from the listed date in another article (and several other details about his death). It also appears that several people have posted sources asking others to work them in, which is better than adding the information in places that don't make sense but leaves some confusion as to their relevance. It seems to me that it would be better to notice a hole in the article and seek a source to fill it in rather than find an interesting source and work it in when it may not be needed. I believe such methods may be partially responsible for the lack of structure. One user noted that the critical reception section makes sweeping claims but cites only two critics. The lead section appears to be the only section discussed as a whole.

This article is a C-rated article. It is similar to the article we reviewed in class in that users are finding sources and working them in rather than evaluating the needs of the article to determine what sources to find. However, this article is also very different because many users are posting sources and asking others to work them in. This collaboration results in less fragmentation; however, it still falls prey to the lack of balance. The community is collaborative, but only a few users make the edits.