User:RosePerera21/sandbox

Exercise 12
Since the 16th, I have added different subsections to the article in an attempt to either expand on existing subsections, or to present a whole new take on the topic. This included moving around certain sections because I noticed that there was a lack of fluidity in some subtopics. I am still working on creating a better tone, along with my group mate, so that the article has a sense of cohesiveness and structure. Additionally, some work was done on sentences to improve the grammar and descriptiveness of the sentences used in the article.

Exercise 8
I am working in a group with Matt, and we are using his sandbox to complete the project. The link to our work is User:MatthewNadybal/sandbox. Goals for our article were added to my Talk page.

Exercise 6 Finalizing Topic
Matt & I will be working on "Obstetric Medicine" and plan on increasing it by 5 fold.

Exercise 5 Copyedit
Wikipedia page on Mary Jackson was edited for minor grammatical errors, and some sentences were rephrased.

Exercise 4 Add a Citation
Mary Jackson was an African American aerospace engineer.

Exercise 3: Topic Selection Round 1

 * 1) "Cisgender" meets the article requirements as the idea of cisgender can be linked through oppression due to the expectations that the label sets up for people who do not identify within the gender binary. The article page on wikipedia does not seem to have an extensive information on the category, which allows for my scope-of-work to be devoted to expanding the article. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/cisgenders-linguistic-uphill-battle/380342/ is an article titled "Can Cisgender Survive?", and lends an interesting perspective to the topic.
 * 2) "Cultural discrimination" meets the article requirements because it is the discrimination of people based on their social class, which is a form of discrimination that is often neglected due to the prevalence of discriminating against someone due to their race. The information on the wikipedia page can lacks a thorough analysis, and is suitable for expansion. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/01/27/class-discrimination-the-silent-prejudice-no-one-talks-about is an article that can act as a testament towards the lack of attention to the topic.
 * 3) "Queer Theory" meets the article requirements because Wikipedia is stating it needs improvement, due to factors like "unclear wording", "does not represent a world wide view", and multiple other issues. Queer theory is undeniably different depending on what region of the world you are focusing on, thus the article can be expanded upon in order to illustrate the different ideologies of the topics around the world. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/17/books/queer-theory-is-entering-the-literary-mainstream.html is an article touching on the emergence of Queer Theory within society (primarily Western society), which is another reason why the wikipedia page needs more information from elsewhere.
 * 4) "Mary Jackson" was an mathematical engineer, and has a wikipedia page that does not truly delve into the depth of her work, which creates an opportunity to expand on her contributions to the scientific world. https://www.scientificwomen.net/women/jackson-mary-104 is an article that talks more elaborately about her history throughout her field.

Article Evaluation: Feminist Theory
Everything within the article was relevant to the article topic, and did not appear to hold biases towards a specific agenda. Instead, the article offered a neutral perspective, supported by many sub topics that delved into the topic in depth. Many of the sources provided seemed like they might be out of date, considering the amount of information currently being discovered within the topic. Some of the sources are from almost two decades ago, which would suggest that they are outdated and do not fit the current climate of the topic. By using more recent data, the page could become more reliable and seem like a more credible source of data.

The article seems fairly neutral, without any obvious signs of bias. However, it does not elaborate much on the on the opposing view of the topic, and has only included a small section titled "criticisms", which does not provide a sufficient amount of data analyzing the other aspect of the topic. The opposing perspective comes off as being heavily underrepresented because of the poor attempt at addressing the opposing cause, which ultimately looks like there is a severe overrepresentation of the data supporting the topic.

A majority of the links work, and seem to support the claims and concept being offered in the text, some of which appear to possibly be biased. Some links, such as "by whom" in the criticism section do not seem to aid the argument in a significant way. Overall, the text seemed to provide somewhat of a credible source, but it definitely helps understand the concept of "feminist theory" at the very least.

Talk Page Feminist Theory Evaluation:
Upon reading the C-Class Article on Feminist Theory, it immediately became clear that it was written in first person in some sections, neglected appropriate use of grammar, and was written informally which unfortunately made the read quite distracting from the topic. While the sources being used seemed to be from relatively new (within the past 10 years or so) articles, the way in which the information was used to support the point could have been done so more efficiently. There definitely needs to be a change in the overall layout of the page, which seems scattered and lacks cohesion.

The tone throughout the text seemed incredibly biased to suit the topic, without considering other perspectives. This immediately makes me not think of this article as a credible source, but rather one that was written by someone who wanted to promote a specific agenda. While I can appreciate the emphasis put on the viewpoint of women, I would have equally appreciated getting additional information on a counter-acting perspective, which seemed to be heavily underrepresented in this case.

The sources used in throughout the text are questionable, with many links having headers that seem highly informal such as "gimme danger" and "BradGad". The minimal links provided do not lead to credible sources, or do not seem connected to the concept it was trying to support. Since the article itself was biased through the length of the page, the sources themselves (of the few that worked) seemed biased as well and had the same informal layout as the original article.