User:Sahilb 21/sandbox

Evaluating "Native American Day" Wikipedia Page
Evaluating content

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps.

What else could be improved?

Everything in the article is relevant and up to date. My biggest complaint is that the article is somewhat confusing at times when talking about "Native American Day" because some other places call it a different name for the same holiday, while there are similarly named days that are separate from this particular article. It was confusing to understand which variations of this day were related to this articles and which aren't.

Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article?

I believe it summarizes the entire article pretty well. I had no background on the holiday and the lead section gave a quick overview to when, where, and why the holiday exists.

Evaluating tone

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I believe the article is neutral because it is on a topic specifically about underrepresentation of Native American viewpoints by creating a day to celebrate the victimized rather than the conquerors. So by nature of the topic, the article is balanced because it provides background on why this exists and exposes the different viewpoint.

Evaluating sources

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

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 references section is actually very brief and only contains the actual legislation that approved the holiday, and does not contain any other types of sources. This is good because the legislation is objective and does not provide any additional viewpoint commentary, but I still believe a few more sources might serve well to maybe provide views that differ from the author of the page's initial interpretation of the bill as well.

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

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?

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is actually no talk on the talk page and interestingly, Wikipedia classed it as a stub article and of low-importance. It is a very brief article, so I believe there was not much dispute at all and it could be possible that just one person really wrote the whole thing without any opposition.

The Handmaid's Tale Evaluation
Following the framework for structuring an article, The Handmaid's Tale meets most of the suggested sections, but it very disorganized and could be structured to better suit the suggested framework. The wikipedia page contains a lead section, summary, analysis, and reception. There is also a section debating the genre classification of the book and does briefly mention the novel as a speculative fiction vs science fiction. There are a few extra sections as well including an adaptations section and a section about the sequel. However, the lead section is not particularly about the book's content and contains irrelevant information. It is also lacking a background section, which would probably be where most of the current lead section information would go. The summary and character sections are also too in-depth, with the necessity of the characters section at all being questionable. The overall structure of the page could be better as well because there is an entire characters list which is unnecessary and the settings section is not suggested, with the settings section serving more as a themes & symbolism section.

To add points from the Merriman and Rule articles, I believe that would fit best in the critical reception section, specifically in the "race" section. It mentions a critique of the book being focused only on white feminism, and I believe Merriman makes several good points about this as well about how the oppression of Black women is paralleled without acknowledging or even intentionally ignoring the fact that race is so intertwined with these gender issues. Rule also

Ana Cottle characterized The Handmaid's Tale as "white feminism", noting that Atwood does away with black people in a few lines by relocating the "Children of Ham" while borrowing heavily from the African-American experience and applying it to white women. Ben Merriman expands on this idea with "at no point in the text does Atwood acknowledge that sexism in America has, generally, been modulated by forms of race and class oppression." His claim is that Atwood focuses on sex without focusing on the racial issue, even though they are both intertwined in the issue of slave oppression of women.

Fun Home Evaluation
The lead section should be cut down because it covers more than it should. The first paragraph is successful in giving a brief introduction to the book, but there are sections on the reception and musical adaptation which should be much shorter, if even present in the lead section, especially since the musical adaptation has its own wikipedia page. The lead section contains sentences about the artwork, which should probably be in the artwork section itself. There is also talk about impact, but then there is no heading specifically discussing the cultural impact, which should be there if it is mentioned in the lead. There is also no true background section about the motivations of writing the novel.

The plot is pretty strong with how much it covers without being too long. The themes and allusions might be more appropriate in its own heading.

Artwork is not a typical heading for a wikipedia page, but it is important in reference to a graphic novel. There is no section specifically about genre and classifying the book, though it is labeled as a graphic novel and memoir in the main facts at the beginning.

The reception section is strong as well with the critical reception, awards, and challenges subsections.

I believe the musical adaptation section is not necessary. A short few sentences may suffice, but the musical adaptation has its own wikipedia page and even a hyperlink at the top redirecting to the musical adaptation page.

Overall, other than some placement about the musical adaptation and background, it is quite a strong article that covers most sections that a strong wikipedia article should.

Fun Home & The Handmaid's Tale Wikipedia Comparison
I believe the biggest similarity in both wikipedia pages is that the main issue is with having too much information. For example, The Handmaid's Tale has an entire in depth section on both the adaptation and the sequel, both of which are questionable choices at best. Fun Home also does this by including too much information of its musical adaptation, which has its own page. I would say The Handmaid's Tale is worse because it has irrelevant information and even questionable headings in general. The characters section is too in depth and the characters should be briefly described in the summary anyways. The same issue arises in the settings section, which contains entire breakdowns of different themes in the book. I believe the strong aspect of both articles is that both have many editors and extensive talk pages, so there has been a lot of work and back and forth to create the pages that currently exist. This is important because much of the talk has extensive discussions before making even the smallest changes and keeps the pages from veering too far off from what wikipedia would suggest.

General Observation & Point of Evaluation
One general observation in Fun Home is some information being organized in the wrong areas. For example, in the lead section, it details Bechdel's artwork process taking seven years and how she would take pictures of herself in scenes to base the artwork off of. I believe this is not relevant to the lead section, and it would make sense to take the section from the second paragraph of the lead section to the artwork section. However, this is already detailed even further in the artwork section, so I believe it would be best to delete the sentence altogether.

Wikipedia Draft
Sources and main points of each scholarly source:

Bauer: Fun Home as part of the transnational archive for its contribution as a "felt source" > compare with Rohy's arguments about potential downfalls of "archival fever" in closing gaps

- Role of books to explore when lesbian identification in patriarchal society with heterosexual norms and sexual identity is hidden

-

* writing in bold below is additions, the italicized part is moved from a different section already in the article.

** will add more in the analysis/scholarship section on more scholars

Analysis/Scholarship
Hike Bauer, Professor at the University of London, categorizes Fun Home as part of the transnational archive for its contribution as a "felt source." '''In a patriarchal and homophobic society, Bauer argues that books provide a source of feelings as Alison uses books to understand how she feels in the wake of an unaccepting general public. Fun Home itself becomes a felt source specifically in relation to queer archives. However, Valerie Rohy questions the authenticity of these queer archives, especially as archival fever leads to questionable contributions for the sake of adding to the archive.'''

Judith Kegan Gardiner, Professor of English and Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, views Fun Home as queer literature bends the literary norms of genre. '''As Linda Bander, Professor of English at Tufts University, defines Shakespeare's plays as containing tragic men and comic women, showcasing the intertwining of gender and genre. Bechdel, however, combines both tragedy and humor by focusing on both the aspects of demise and union. Bechdel takes control of creating an open culture for lesbian feminist work by focusing less on less on the death and accusations of a gay man, and more on the tragedy faced by Alison and the guilt towards that death. Breaking the gender norms of genre, especially within lesbian and gay literature, has affected the way characters are portrayed and represented.'''

Background
'''Bechdel's motivation to write the book was to dive into Bruce's life to see why things turned out the way they did and whether Alison would have made different choices in his shoes. The contrasts between Bruce's artifice in hiding things from how they actually were with Alison's free and open self. The process of writing Fun Home required many references to literary works and archives to both accurately write and draw the scenes. As Bechdel wrote the book, many literary references would frequently appear in her writing, which lead to several re-readings and each chapter having a different literary focus. On the process of writing the book, Bechdel says "It was such a huge project: six or seven years of drawing and excavating. It was sort of like living in a trance." '''

''Fun Home is drawn in black line art with a gray-blue ink wash. Sean Wilsey wrote that Fun Home's panels "combine the detail and technical proficiency of R. Crumb with a seriousness, emotional complexity and innovation completely its own." Writing in the Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, Diane Ellen Hamer contrasted "Bechdel's habit of drawing her characters very simply and yet distinctly" with "the attention to detail that she devotes to the background, those TV shows and posters on the wall, not to mention the intricacies of the funeral home as a recurring backdrop." Bechdel told an interviewer for The Comics Journal that the richness of each panel of Fun Home was very deliberate:"It's very important for me that people be able to read the images in the same kind of gradually unfolding way as they're reading the text. I don't like pictures that don't have information in them. I want pictures that you have to read, that you have to decode, that take time, that you can get lost in. Otherwise what's the point?"Alison Bechdel took photographs of herself posing as each character, to use as reference in her drawing. Here, she poses for a drawing of her father.'' ''Bechdel wrote and illustrated Fun Home over a seven-year period. Her meticulous artistic process made the task of illustration slow. She began each page by creating a framework in Adobe Illustrator, on which she placed the text and drew rough figures. She used extensive photo reference and, for many panels, posed for each human figure herself, using a digital camera to record her poses. Bechdel also used photo reference for background elements. For example, to illustrate a panel depicting fireworks seen from a Greenwich Village rooftop on July 4, 1976, she used Google Images to find a photograph of the New York skyline taken from that particular building in that period. She also painstakingly copied by hand many family photographs, letters, local maps and excerpts from her own childhood journal, incorporating these images into her narrative. After using the reference material to draw a tight framework for the page, Bechdel copied the line art illustration onto plate finish Bristol board for the final inked page, which she then scanned into her computer. The gray-blue ink wash for each page was drawn on a separate page of watercolor paper, and combined with the inked image using Photoshop. Bechdel chose the bluish wash color for its flexibility, and because it had "a bleak, elegiac quality" which suited the subject matter. Bechdel attributes this detailed creative process to her "barely controlled obsessive-compulsive disorder".''

Final Draft
 

Analysis/Scholarship
Heike Bauer, a professor at the University of London, categorizes Fun Home as part of the transnational archive for its contribution towards the "felt experiences" of the LGBTQ community. '''In a patriarchal and homophobic society, Bauer argues that books provide a relatable source, or a felt experience, as Alison uses literature to understand how she feels in the wake of an unaccepting general public. Fun Home itself becomes a felt source specifically in relation to queer archives.'''

Valerie Rohy, an English professor at the University of Vermont, questions the authenticity of the archives. '''Rohy explores how Alison adds to queer archives through her diary in her childhood and the reading in her young adulthood. Though on the archives relating to Bruce's death, Rohy questions the validity of Alison claiming the death as a suicide, and whether that results from the need to archive even when not advised.'''

Judith Kegan Gardiner, a professor of English and Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, views Fun Home as queer literature that bends the literary norms of genre. '''Tragedy typically being associated with men and comedy with women. Bechdel, however, combines both tragedy and humor by focusing on both the aspects of demise and union. Bechdel takes control of creating an open culture for lesbian feminist work by focusing less on less on the death and accusations of a gay man, and more on the tragedy faced by Alison and the guilt towards that death. Breaking the gender norms of genre, particularly within lesbian and gay literature, has affected the way characters are portrayed and represented in both Bechdel's work.'''

Background
'''Bechdel states her motivation to dive into Bruce's life stemmed from her desire to see why things turned out the way they did and whether Alison would have made different choices if she was in his position. She contrasts between Bruce's artifice in hiding things from how they actually were with Alison's free and open self. The process of writing Fun Home required many references to literary works and archives to both accurately write and draw the scenes. As Bechdel wrote the book, many literary references would frequently appear in her writing, which lead to several re-readings and each chapter having a different literary focus. On the process of writing the book, Bechdel says "It was such a huge project: six or seven years of drawing and excavating. It was sort of like living in a trance." '''

''Fun Home is drawn in black line art with a gray-blue ink wash. Sean Wilsey wrote that Fun Home's panels "combine the detail and technical proficiency of R. Crumb with a seriousness, emotional complexity and innovation completely its own." Writing in the Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, Diane Ellen Hamer contrasted "Bechdel's habit of drawing her characters very simply and yet distinctly" with "the attention to detail that she devotes to the background, those TV shows and posters on the wall, not to mention the intricacies of the funeral home as a recurring backdrop." Bechdel told an interviewer for The Comics Journal that the richness of each panel of Fun Home was very deliberate:"It's very important for me that people be able to read the images in the same kind of gradually unfolding way as they're reading the text. I don't like pictures that don't have information in them. I want pictures that you have to read, that you have to decode, that take time, that you can get lost in. Otherwise what's the point?"Alison Bechdel took photographs of herself posing as each character, to use as reference in her drawing. Here, she poses for a drawing of her father.''

''Bechdel wrote and illustrated Fun Home over a seven-year period. Her meticulous artistic process made the task of illustration slow. She began each page by creating a framework in Adobe Illustrator, on which she placed the text and drew rough figures. She used extensive photo reference and, for many panels, posed for each human figure herself, using a digital camera to record her poses. Bechdel also used photo reference for background elements. For example, to illustrate a panel depicting fireworks seen from a Greenwich Village rooftop on July 4, 1976, she used Google Images to find a photograph of the New York skyline taken from that particular building in that period. She also painstakingly copied by hand many family photographs, letters, local maps and excerpts from her own childhood journal, incorporating these images into her narrative. After using the reference material to draw a tight framework for the page, Bechdel copied the line art illustration onto plate finish Bristol board for the final inked page, which she then scanned into her computer. The gray-blue ink wash for each page was drawn on a separate page of watercolor paper, and combined with the inked image using Photoshop. Bechdel chose the bluish wash color for its flexibility, and because it had "a bleak, elegiac quality" which suited the subject matter. Bechdel attributes this detailed creative process to her "barely controlled obsessive-compulsive disorder".''

Bechdel states that her motivation for writing Fun Home was to reflect on why things turned out the way they did. She reflects on her father's untimely death and whether Alison would have made different choices if she were in his position. This motivation is present throughout as she contrasts Bruce's artifice in hiding things with Alison's free and open self. The process of writing Fun Home required many references to literary works and archives to both accurately write and draw the scenes. As Bechdel wrote the book, she would reread the sources of her literary references, and this lead to the development of each chapter having a different literary focus. On the process of writing the book, Bechdel says, "It was such a huge project: six or seven years of drawing and excavating. It was sort of like living in a trance."

Heike Bauer, a professor at the University of London, categorizes Fun Home as part of the transnational archive for its contribution towards the "felt experiences" of the LGBTQ community. Bauer argues that books provide a relatable source, or a felt experience, as Alison uses literature to understand her own feelings in a homophobic society. Bauer notes that as Alison finds relatable literature for her experiences, Fun Home itself becomes a similar outlet for its readers by increasing representation of LGBTQ literature.

Valerie Rohy, an English professor at the University of Vermont, questions the authenticity of Alison's archives in the book. Rohy explores how Alison uses her diary in her childhood and readings in her young adulthood to both document her life and learn about herself through written works. On the uncertainty relating to Bruce's cause of death, Rohy says Alison concludes it to be a suicide to fill in her knowledge gap in the documentation of the situation, similar to her use of books to fill gaps in understanding her own situation while growing up.

Judith Kegan Gardiner, a professor of English and Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, views Fun Home as queer literature that bends the literary norms of genre. Bechdel combines both tragedy, normally associated with men, and humor, normally associated with women, by discussing her father's death using a comic book style and dark humor. Gardiner argues Bechdel takes control of creating an open culture for lesbian feminist work through Fun Home by focusing less on the death and accusations of a gay man, and more on the tragedy faced by Alison and the guilt towards that death. Breaking the gender norms of genre, particularly within lesbian and gay literature, Fun Home has dramatically affected representation.