User:Stchung19/sandbox

Section Evaluation of Teaching for Change (2/18/20)
Teaching For Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_for_Change

Evaluating content


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything presented in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No... the only thing that could be out of date was number of employees for the organization. The article says there are 21 employees which is highly unlikely still and there is no source to reference this fact.
 * Identify content gaps.
 * I think it would be helpful for their to be a section about the work Teaching for Change is doing today and how specific stories on how it is impacting communities across the States. There are also some points within the history section that are kind of random. For example, they have this sentence ("In 2014, Teaching for Change was attacked by Rush Limbaugh who said of the organization, "it’s racist, it’s bigoted." ") without any context of the situation.
 * What else could be improved?
 * I would reorder the sections within the article... I would have put the history section after stating the purpose of Teaching for Change instead of the very bottom of the article.
 * Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article?
 * No. The lead section does provide an overview of the organization but fails to talk about the programming sections of the article.

Evaluating tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes. The article seems to do a good job at being unbiased while presenting the facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. The article is pretty stable and straightforward without going too in depth about any topic.

Evaluating sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * For the most part yes. Most of the information came from the Teaching for Change website or news articles and magazines. Yes, they are neutral sources.

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?
 * There are no conversations about how to represent the topic. The article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. There is no rating of the article on the talk page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked about Teaching for Change in class.

Section Evaluation for Drama (2/24/20)
Lead Section


 * The lead section does an adequate job in giving a brief description of the plot, the themes and style of the book, public reception, and also mentions the awards it has won. The only part missing are details about the book's publication.

Background


 * The background section speaks about the author's inspiration for writing and why she chose to write a graphic novel. It also references how some characters are the resemblance of the author's friends in her own life.

Summary


 * Uhhh... the summary does summarize much of the book but there are many grammatical errors and it is not written well at all. There is no fluidity from scene to scene and it would be confusing to understand for someone who has not read the book. It also goes a little too in depth into the book; it is not really a summary at all.

Genre


 * The first sentence of the section describes the book as a graphic novel. It then goes on to give two perspectives of college educators who praise the book for its willingness to talk about LGBTQ material. The last perspective, however, heavily criticizes the book saying it does not properly address the issue of race. There is no information about the author's other work or connections between her works.

Analysis


 * The analysis section is divided into three sections: "Presentation of questioning identity and coming out", "Presentation of hegemonic masculinity", and "Race." Within each section, there is sufficient scholarly analysis of these three subjects.

Publication


 * There is no publication section.

Reception


 * The awards section lists all of the awards the graphic novel has won.

Infobox


 * The infobox lists the author, language, genre, publishing date, publisher, ISBN number, and the website of the novel.

Abate Article Analysis Within Drama Wikipedia Page


 * Abate's argument in her article is clearly represented within the Wikipedia page on Drama. Under the section on genre and style, Abate's opinion on how of the images in the novel refer to racially inappropriate images from the past such as an image of Jim Crow and Ashley Wilkes. Although the book does a good job at presenting LGBTQ material, it lacks to address the racial inequality and problems within the novel. Also, under the analysis section, Abate argues that the set of the play in Drama represents a whitewashed and idealized setting of Southern plantation life. All of these problems raised by Abate in the Wikipedia page are points raised in the Abate article.