User:R.dever/sandbox

Evaluation on 18 February 2020 - Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Evaluating content

·      Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, all the information is relevant.

·      Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps. There is a content gap in the there is no summary of the text. There is also no information regarding positive reception. The reception section nearly solely focuses on the negative reviews and controversies of the text.

·      What else could be improved? It could be improved by adding more information. The article is very short for how well known and commonly cited the article is.

·      Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article? It summarizes some information but it also provides information that is not mentioned again such as the origin of the story and it being written in Portuguese. The lead section needs to be further developed.

Evaluating tone

·      Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is somewhat neutral but the focus on the reception portion is the controversy not the positive reception of the book.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Over represents the negative ideas of the book. There should be more information regarding the positives. It is slightly mentioned twice but it should be in the reception section saying why this book is used in education courses.

Evaluating sources

·      Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? In the influences there needs to be a citation for the first claim, but the other citations are working well.

·      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? For example, does the writer use signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information? The sources do not seem neutral, I opened one source "spiked" and it was biased with the view points it showed. There are also only 11 sources despite many more scholarly articles being written about Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Checking the talk page

·      Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. People are mentioning the issues with the article including vandalism and there is also a talk about Sol Stern and their critiques of Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

·      What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? There are not many active conversations. The article is rated start class and is in the Wikiproject Brazil/ Arts/ Education and science and is part of the Wikiprojects books.

·      How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we talked about the controversy and the involvement of this book in a banned curriculum but there are positives reviews of the book that are not mentioned in the wikipedia article.

Evaluation on 24 February 2020- Drama

 * The lead section is well representative of the whole wikipedia article, giving background on the book, a brief summary, reception and awards. The only part the lead lacks is talking about the genre and style of the text.
 * The background section does explain how the book came to be, including how some of the characters are based on people the author knows. It also mentions the authors other books, including Smile, Guts, Ghosts and Sisters, however the formatting of the page should be redone with a consistent labeling of other books. The background section does not include when the book was written.
 * The summary section does explain the actions of the book, it is almost too detailed. There is too much unnecessary information, and only include the most pivotal information.
 * The genre and style section should be a discussion of the type of illustrations, it primarily serves as a reception section. Some of the information should be moved to a new section
 * The analysis section is very clear with what is addressed under each heading.
 * In the reception section there is a distribution of opinions, of both positive and negative. It is well rounded and fits in the necessary information.
 * The awards section clearly labeled the positive acclaim for Drama and cites each of the acclaims.
 * For the article as a whole there needs to be a publication section that is included for books on Wikipedia

3.b. Abate's ideas are included in the Genre and Style, Reception, and Analysis. They serve to add some of the issues with Drama and show some debate in the reception. I think Abate's article is used clearly and accurately in the wikipedia page. The main edit I see for Abate's work would be to have her signal phrase "Michelle Abate, an Associate Professor of Literature for Children and Young Adults at The Ohio State University, argues that," should be included earlier. Abate is mentioned serval times in different sections prior to this signal phrase. To make this page more helpful for readers the signal phrase should be included the first time that Abate is mentioned. An idea from Abate that could be added to the wikipedia page is the romanticization of the civil war era.

Annotated Bibliography King & King

 * 1) Sutton, Roger. King and King. 78 Vol. Media Source, Inc, 2002. Web.


 * Roger Sutton reviews King & King, giving a positive review of the illustrations. He also remarks on the political nature of the book not being an overwhelming theme. I plan to use this source both in a reception section and use his ideas on the illustrations in a genre and style section.

2. Garde, Nancy. King & King (Book). 10 Vol. Lambda Literary Foundation, 2002. Web.


 * Nancy Garde wrote in a LGBT studies section of a paper and wrote an initial review of the book King & King. This review will be used in a reception section. She also provided a negative review of the illustrations which will make the ‘Style and Genre’ section more balanced.

3. Threadgill, Catherine, Phyllis Levy Mandell, and Walter Minkel. King & King (Book). 48 Vol. Media Source, Inc, 2002. Web.


 * Like the other sources Threadgill summarized and reviewed King & King. It provides an evaluation of the illustration in the book. This source will be useful in a ‘Reception’ section, as it provides details of editors ideas shortly after the book was released. A description of the illustration will be useful in the ‘Style and Genre’ section.

4. KING & KING (Book). 70 Vol. Kirkus Media, LLC, 2002. Web.


 * Kirkus Reviews summarized and evaluated King & King. They provide a positive review of the book which will balance out the article that is heavily fixated on the book’s controversy. Currently the ‘Reception’ section is more of an analysis section and this source will help accurately fill in what should be in a ‘Reception Section.’

5. Roback, Diane, et al. KING & KING (Book). 249 Vol. PWxyz LLC, 2002. Web.


 * Roback summarizes King & King. He discusses the negative impact of the artwork on the picture book as a whole. I will use this review to enhance a ‘Style and Genre’ section as I will focus on the illustrations in this section.

6. Stevenson, Deborah. "King & King." Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books 55.11 (2002): 400. ProQuest Central, Research Library. Web.


 * Stevenson summarizes and gives a short review of King & King. The article will be useful in my ‘Style and Genre’ section as it has a description of the type of illustration. Stevenson provides a positive review of the illustrations which has been a polarizing opinion amongst reviewers.

7. Dawn Turner Trice. "Some Parents Don'T Like Twist in Fairy Tale: [Chicago Final Edition]." Chicago Tribune, 2003, p. 1. ProQuest Central. Web.


 * Turner discusses the controversy around King & King. Specifically a case at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where parents were conserved about their children’s exposure to LGBTQ content. In the Wikipedia article there is a developed section on the banning of King & King. However that content is out of date, and this source provides a more recent example of the book’s controversy.

8. "King and King Still Reigns in Pennsylvania." American Libraries 39.1/2 (2008): 27-8. ProQuest Central, Research Library. Web.


 * The American Libraries discusses a specific example of the banning of King & King in Pennsylvania. The issue with the book surrounds the LGBTQ content in the story. The wikipedia article is almost entirely about the book’s controversy but one subheading is called “Ongoing Controversy…” However, this is no longer ongoing as the last addition was in 2008. This shows how outdated the ‘Opposition’ section is and how this newer controversial case in PA will be helpful.

Lead
King & King is a fictional children's picture book co-authored and co-illustrated by Stern Nijland and Linda De Haan. King & King tells the story of a young prince whose mother is forcing him to find his princess. However, after meeting many princesses, the prince fell in love with another prince. King & King was originally written in Dutch and has since been published in ten languages. The book’s illustrations have received both positive and negative reviews, as has the storyline. The book has been analyzed for both its usefulness in the classroom and its challenges to social norms.

Publication
It was originally written in Dutch ("Koning & Koning") and published in the Netherlands in 2000, but has since been published in ten languages. A stage adaptation has been performed globally, from Vienna to Mexico City. In the United States, it was published by Berkeley, California-based Tricycle Press (the children's imprint of Ten Speed Press) in 2002; as of 2009, 20,000 copies have been sold in the United States. At Tricycle Press' request a sequel, King & King & Family, about the kings adopting a child, appeared in 2004.

Style and Genre
King & King is a fictional children’s picture book intended for ages 6 and older that combines both illustrations and text.

The book’s illustrations have been a point of disagreement amongst reviewers, who disagree if the illustrations add or distract from the story. The book and the illustrations were critiqued by Horn book Magazine, Lambda Book Report, The School Library, Publisher’s Weekly, and Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. Roger Sutton of the Horn Book Magazine called the illustrations “silly but affectionate collage illustrations.” Sutton claims that this style of collage complements the “text for whimsical irreverence.” Nancy Garde of the Lambda Book Report also positively reviewed the illustrations. She described the illustrations, noting the fun details and objects to be found on the pages. She also mentions the “colorful cut-paper collages,” but she describes them as “big and brash.” The School Library described the illustrations as “cluttered, disjointed, ill-conceived art.” The review says that the artwork takes away from the overall message of the book, as it distracts the audience from the fun and positive details in the book. Publisher’s Weekly also condemned the illustration in the book, noting the ugly color scheme, inconsistent body and image shapes and ugly characters. The distasteful images caused Publisher's Weekly to recommend a different book with a similarly diverse theme, rather than reading King & King. The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books similarly described the fully filled pages, but rather than describing them negatively, Deborah Stevenson from Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books characterized the illustrations as “joyously informal pageantry.”

Reception and Analysis
Lai continues to say that the book challenges social norms "by including many unconventional elements, including single motherhood and alternative families. Most importantly, it lays out a gay-positive story with an ending that is gratifying for all parties, but without consciously constructing something like a judicial opinion that imposes a new legal or, worse still, punitive standard upon its reader."

Controversy in Chicago
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools annually vote to grant an award to a children’s book (7, Trice). In 2003, King &King was one of the finalists for this award, which raised controversy amongst parents about King & King’s plot (7, Trice). Some parents were angry that the school neglected to inform the parents before teaching their children about homosexual relationships because it is a controversial theme (7, Trice).

The Chicago Tribune attributes this controversy to more than homophobic parents but an increasing unease of the lack of control over their children (7, Trice). The Tribune also uses this book to discuss when parents should discuss controversial topics with their kids. (7, Trice).