User:Prgopalan/sandbox

Article evaluation
I am evaluating the article on "Indian Chinese cuisine."

The article lacks citations. As a result, parts of it sound as though they are opinions rather than facts - for example, the claim in the introduction that Indo-Chinese food developed to include a variety of vegetarian options so that it would appeal to more Indians. The few citations it does include are not up-to-date. Many of them are no longer working links, and at least one links to a blog. Stylistically the article leans towards more subjective than objective language, such as in its description of the "generous helpings of gravy" some dishes are served with.

Some of the information in the "Origins" subsection, particularly on Kolkata's Chinatown, does not seem to bear a direct relevance to the topic of Indo-Chinese cuisine. The information about the food available in Kolkata's Chinatown would make more sense if moved under the "Availability" subsection, though the "Availability" subsection doesn't contribute much to the article either. It includes very few citations and the information it presents is very generic.

The article would benefit from a more in-depth history on the specific development of Indo-Chinese food. The "Dishes" subsection could be more thoroughly organized. It currently appears to be organized arbitrarily, with no explicit explanation of what makes a dish a "Main Course entree" as opposed to "Rice and noodles." The distinction for "Unique dishes" is also very vague and needs more clarification. The article could benefit from more direct comparison to Chinese cooking, rather than vague statements about Indo-Chinese food's great difference from Chinese food.

The article is part of the WikiProjects Food and drink, India and China. It is rated Start-class. There are few discussions on the Talk page, and the ones that are posted discuss very specific aspects of the article, such as its lack of inclusion of Gobi Manchurian, or its excessive focus on Mumbai restaurants in the "Availability" subsection. There is no discussion of the lack of citations or the organization of the article as a whole, or of stylistic edits that might bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards for objective encyclopedic writing.

Chosen article evaluation
I have chosen to evaluate the article "Polari."

Considering the vast scope and history of the language, the article on Polari provides very little historical context. It gives a brief overview of the many contexts in which Polari was used, without distinguishing between the different connotations the language held depending on when and who was speaking it. For instance, there is little separation made between the use of Polari by Romani, by gay men, and by sailors, and there is barely any acknowledgement of the roots of Polari within Romani culture.

The article's structure is a bit haphazard; the "References" subsection is placed before several sections on Polari usage. Most of the article is taken up by a glossary of Polari terms, which could do with their own separate article that the main article links to. Several of the subsections could probably be merged together to create a more streamlined article - for instance, "Polari in use" could be brought into the subsection "Usage" or "Description."

There are a fair number of citations, primarily from online newspapers and magazines. The sections on Polari history are not cited as well as the sections on Polari in popular culture and its modern use.

Possible selections
Polari

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

Bushranger ban

Bibliography (Polari)
Alkarim Jivani, It’s Not Unusual: A History of Lesbian and Gay Britain in the Twentieth Century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).

Paul Baker, Polari - The Lost Language of Gay Men (Routledge, 2003).

Paul Baker and Jo Stanley, Hello Sailor!: The Hidden History of Gay Life at Sea (Routledge, 2015).

Sakis Kyratzis, Language, Sexualities and Desires: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Springer, 2006).

William L. Leap, "Studying Lesbian and Gay Languages: Vocabulary, Text-making, and Beyond," in Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology, edited by Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002).

Don Kulick, "Gay and Lesbian Language," Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000): 243-285.

Adam Geczy, Vicki Karaminas and Justine Taylor, "Sailor Style: Representations of the Mariner in Popular Culture and Contemporary Fashion," Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2016): 141-164.

Bibliography (Bushranger ban)
American-Australian Cinema: Transnational Connections, edited by Adrian Danks, Stephen Gaunson, and Peter C. Kunze (Springer, 2018).

David Coad, Gender Trouble Down Under: Australian Masculinities (Presses universitaires de Valenciennes, 2002).

Brian McFarlane, Geoff Mayer, and Ina Bertrand, The Oxford Companion to Australian Film (Oxford University Press, 1999).

Nicholas Birns, Contemporary Australian Literature: A World Not Yet Dead (Sydney University Press, 2015).

Graham Shirley and Brian Adams, Australian Cinema, the First Eighty Years (Currency Press, 1989).

David Carter and Roger Osborne, Australian Books and Authors in the American Marketplace, 1840s-1940s (Sydney University Press, 2018).

Tom O'Reagan, "Australian Film Making: Its Public Circulation," Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, No. 22/23 (Autumn 1983): 31-36.

Peter Limbrick, "The Australian Western, or a Settler Colonial Cinema par excellence," Cinema Journal, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Summer 2007): 68-95.

Bushranger ban edits
Additions to the Bushranger ban page in second sandbox: User:Prgopalan/editsandbox