User:Samone H/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the topic, in the sense that I do not feel like I read anything that was related to the United States Census somehow. However, there were a few things in the article that I thought were distracting, or at least could have been taken out. The list of all the survey's was so distracting! Personally, I really disliked it. I found myself reading the first 5 and skimming and skipping the rest. I recommend maybe listing maybe just five or maybe even three of the most important survey's used. I highly believe that no one is going to read every single one of those survey's listed.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * For the most part, I feel like the author tried writing the article with no bias. Or there was no direct bias, but I feel like the tone of the writing was biased. I felt like there was some bias emotion in the way the census was taken, and the political issues associated with the US Census.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * The data collection section was over-presented! I was really tired of reading about it and I wish the author just made it sort and sweet. If I had to say something that was under-represented would be the way the Census was taken, and the errors that go into taken the Census like coverage error and source error. I feel like those would just be really important because the author just made it sound like the Census was perfect at counting every individual the United States when that is not entirely the case. Also, I don't know why the author imputed a section about the personal information getting released by answering Census question. In my opinion, the article could have been fine without it.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * I clicked on a lot of citations and they all worked for me, there was maybe one or two that aren't good sources though. (I believe citation 4)
 * 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?
 * There is a citation to a biased article, because it comes from a news published article, with a title that has a biased to persuade the reader one way.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? ''
 * There's some data from the 1980's or the 1990's and more relevant information could have been better.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Some people are asking for missing citations, meaning there's a lot of information that isn't supported. Also, the author talking about political controversy in the article was risky, because it shows a bias.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated C-class (low importance) and yes it is.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It does not talk as much in detail. It doesn't talk about all the race issues, and the collection issues.

''' It's not necessary to rewrite the questions for the evaluation, but instead try to write one paragraph that summarizes all of your answers. Still - nice work! - Prof Hammad'''

(Thank you! Following the next assignment I'll work on putting my thoughts in sentences.)

Singapore Article (Notes):

 * Think back to when you did an article critique. What section or content is missing? What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page.
 * A lot of the content needs to be reorganized and reworded.
 * it's referring to a graph and there isn't a graph anywhere.
 * there's unnecessary data about the types of policies in place
 * also there's seem to be some persuading about some of policies.
 * a lot of citations don't work. (6, 7, 15, 22)

Singapore's Population Conundrum
 * Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.

Asian Population Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1-3.

Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: population norms for the EQ-5D

Quality of Life Research, vol. 22, no. 10, 2013, pp. 2983-2991.

Singapore Population

Economist Intelligence Unit: Country ViewsWire, 2003.

Takeaways from Singapore's population data

"Takeaways from Singapore's Population Data." The Straits Times, 2017.

SINGAPORE'S POPULATION CONUNDRUM: The Great Balancing Act 2

Southeast Asian Affairs, vol. 2013, no. 1, 2013, pp. 274-284. ''' This looks pretty good! - Prof H '''

Edit Summary
Copied from Population planning in Singapore

(Original Text)
Population planning in Singapore spans two distinct phases: first to slow and reverse the boom in births that started after World War II; and then, from the 1980s onwards, to encourage parents to have more children because birth numbers had fallen below replacement levels. Government eugenics policies favoured both phases. In 1960s and 1970s, the antinatalist policies flourished. The Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) of Singapore was established, initially advocating small families but eventually running the "Stop-at-Two" programme, which pushed for small two-children families and promoted sterilisation in order to have population control. From 1969 it was also used by government leaders to target lowly educated and low-income women in an experiment with eugenics policies to solve social concerns.

Government leaders also announced the Graduate Mothers' Scheme in 1984, which favoured the children of mothers with a university degree in primary school placement and registration process over the lesser-educated. After the outcry in the 1984 general elections it was eventually scrapped.

Singapore had also been undergoing the demographic transition and birth rates had fallen precipitously. The government eventually became pro-natalist, and officially announced its replacement "Have-Three-or-More (if you can afford it)" in 1987, in which the government continued its efforts to better the quality and quantity of the population while discouraging low-income families from having children. The Social Development Unit (SDU) was also established in 1984 to promote marriage and romance between educated individuals.

Different sources have offered differing judgments on the government policies' impact on the population structure of Singapore. While Stop at Two has been described as basically successful or "over-successful", sceptics of interventionism claim that the demographic transition would have occurred anyway – noting that the government's attempts at reversing the falling birth rates due to the demographic transition have been less than successful.

(Updated Text)
Population planning in Singapore spans two distinct phases: first to slow and reverse the boom in births that started after World War II; and second, from the 1980s onwards, to encourage parents to have more children because birth numbers had fallen below replacement levels.

The first phase was enforced, by Singapore Family Planning and Population Board (SFPPB) Act, in 1966 after Singapore faced “post war food and housing shortages. ” SFPPB targeted low-socioeconomic status individuals, particularly females, and worked to encourage contraceptive use, such as condoms and birth control. The SFPPB advocated for small families, establishing the "Stop-at-Two" programme, which pushed for small two-children families and promoted sterilisation in order to have population control. SFPPB also opened more clinics to better health and welfare of those families.

The government program “Stop-at-Two” was very successful. The program could even be considered too successful. The policy that only allowed couples to have only two children started a cause a population decline and impact the population structure of Singapore in a negative manner. The government has made attempts to reverse the falling birth rates, initiating phase two.

Phase two has been very unsuccessful. A lot of policies set in place by the government during phase one made phase two difficult take place. In phase one, civil workers were not paid for maternity leave after their second child, hospital fees were higher after the second child, top school choices were given to only children, and sterilization was benefited with seven days of paid leave. During phase two, several of these policies were still taking place and individuals remained having one child, or no children.

The government eventually became pro-natalist, and officially announced its replacement "Have-Three-or-More (if you can afford it)" in 1987, in which the government continued its efforts to better the quality and quantity of the population while discouraging low-income families from having children. The Social Development Unit (SDU) was also established in 1984 to promote marriage and romance between educated individuals.

 I like where these additions are going - I can see some opportunities to engage a little more with the material from our class as well; for example,pro-natalist policies and how these are related to fertility transition, etc. Prof H 

African American Neighborhoods
I don't necessarily like the tone of the article. There's a difference between being black and African-American, and I don't know why but the tone of the article is bothering with the use of those terms. The introduction needs so much work. To begin with, the tone needs to be changed, the opening sentencing of comparing African-American neighborhoods to ethnic enclaves, it confusing and then I don't understand why the article is saying "found in the US." It makes it sound like it was a great big discovery or ancient place. Which it isn't. There have been black and African-American communities as long as the US existed which was due to slavery and segregation. The introduction does not set up the article very well, at all. The introduction should connect more to the major topics covered in the article because the information given the article is great, but then I wouldn't have guessed that I would've obtained any of that information just be reading the introduction. Does that make sense? The lead section is just confusing to me.

The article is leaving out a lot of important information that could add to the article. For example, reverse redlining, Jim Crow Era, lack of education, healthy food options, and healthcare access in these neighborhoods, and the amount of poverty experienced in these neighborhoods. Which should also be followed by the crime rates, racial disparities, homicides, police shootings, and biased policing experienced in these neighborhoods.

The article has a clear structure, minus the introduction. There is a healthy balance of coverage. The only thing I would change is how the article is mention that the black and African-American communities are experiencing poverty, but not stating reasons why. The article is talking about these communities being considered "ghetto" or the "projects" but missing the information that the government isn't putting money into improving these neighborhoods, or how difficult people are making it black and African-American people to purpose housing in white communities.

I don't know. Maybe I'm thinking too much into details. They are just suggestions to add to the article.

As far as the sources go, the ones I clicked on opened a link for me, I did find one by Holland Cotter that was more of a news article than reliable research, so maybe finding updated information for that article. I was also looking at the dates on the references, and most of them came from the 1900's or the early 2000's so maybe finding newer information could really improve the article.

I can't wait to see you to continue to improve this article!

Birth Control in Africa:
The introduction (lead section) was really good, and the opening sentence caught my attention. The lead section really gives a layout and information that I can expect to learn about from reading the rest of this article. The tone is very good. Very neutral. There are some sentence structure issues that could be fixed, and there are some citations that are should be in-text citations, or are phrased in a way that seems like they are in-citations, but are not cited as such.

The article overall has a clear structure, I really like how it's broken up, and there seems to balance of coverage. No section in the article is over or under extended in my opinion. The article does a good job of explaining a concept, explaining its effects on the African community, and giving adequate information on a topic. Maybe the Methods Section and the Factors Affecting Prevalence should be switched. It could better the flow of the article.The section about cultural attitudes really adds to multiple perspectives of the article and doesn't give the article a biased tone.

Maybe you could find another word to use other an attitude? Sometimes the word attitude was negative connotations attached to it.

When looking at the dates of the references most of them seem to be from 2010 and above. Which is good because you want the information in the article to represent the most recent information. So, more recent information could be even better! I couldn't find the link for citations #6, but the majority of the sources are from reliable sources and studies.

Overall, great article! I really enjoyed it.

Statistics on Failure of Phase Two
Phase Two started in the early 1960's. The natural rate of increase (per 1,000 population) between the years of 1955-1960 (five years previous to phase two) was 35.4. Five to ten years later, the natural rate of increase decrease to 27.8. Following that, 20 years later the natural rate of increase continued to decline. The natural rate of increase between the time period of 1980-1985, was 12.2, and several years after that, between the years of 2010-2015 the natural rate of increase, continued decreased to 4.6. The lowest natural rate of increase seen in Singapore and according to the data of the United Nations (2017) will continue to decline. The rate of natural increase in Singapore is forecasted to decrease to 1.2 between the period of 2025-2030.

Post War
World War II in Singapore ended in 1945, and the years following caused the population to increase faster than the economy was developing. . There were about 1 million baby boomers born between the years of 1947 and 1964, live births increasing 58%.

With the rapid increase of Singapore after the war, the country would soon face of the effects of overpopulation, which could be the depletion of natural resources, degradation of environment, a rise in unemployment, and a higher cost of living. From 1947 to 1957, the social forces which caused the post–World War II baby boom elsewhere in the world also occurred in Singapore. The birth rate rose and the death rate fell; the average annual growth rate was 4.4%, of which 1% was due to immigration; Singapore experienced its highest birth rate in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand individuals. (This was also the same year the United States saw its peak birth rate.) Upon Singapore experiencing the many of the effects of overpopulation, and in fear of experiencing more, the Singapore government decided to step in.

Family Planning
Family planning was introduced to Singapore in 1949 by a group of volunteers led by Constance Goh that eventually became the Family Planning Association of Singapore and established numerous sexual health clinics offering contraception, treatments for minor gynaecological ailments, and marital advice. Until the 1960s there was no official government policy in these matters, but the postwar British colonial administration, followed by the Singaporean government, played an increasingly important role by providing ever larger grants to the Association, as well as land for its facilities network, culminating in 1960 with a three-month nationwide family planning campaign that was jointly conducted by the Association and government. The population growth rate slowed from 4–5% per year in the 1950s to around 2.5% in 1965 around independence. The birth rate had fallen to 29.5 per thousand individuals, and the natural growth rate had fallen to 2.5%.

Singapore's population expansion can be seen in the table below: