User:Tjc81/sandbox

Evaluating Content
1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Some parts of the article is relevant to the topic, but one part out of place is the Schools of Thought section. The information in that section is important to add, but to have its own section and to have so little (2 sentences) in that section seemed a little out of place. In addition, there was no current information after the year 2012. I do not know all the information regarding Chican@ studies, but I imagine something must have happened after 2012 that should be added.

2) Is any information out of date?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

I think the content might be a little out of date, especially considering that there is no new information after 2012.

3) What else could be improved?

There just needs to be more modern information, and perhaps more comprehensive sections overall (besides the History).

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

There's a quote in the lead section, and I believe that should not exactly be there in that it does not fit with the broader overview of the topic. In addition, the lead fails

to mention any sort of controversy or impetus for the studies.

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

Yes, I do believe the article is neutral.

6) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I don't know if they should include the opposers to the program in the article, but it could be valid in contextaulizing the rolling back the program in Tucson. However, it is therefore important to include the supporters' viewpoint as well.

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

Yes, they work and they relate the article.

8) 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?

Yes, all material presented is sourced decently well. However, there is not enough material to cite.

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

Checking out the Talk Page
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this

topic?

There is not much talk, the last comment from 2017. Not much has been talked about, just basic information added. It is still a start-class article.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

Start-Class, Low-Importance. It is a part of WikiProjects United States.

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

class?

As low-importance it is different because we have framed this topic as very important to children, but perhaps it is lower in importance in the grander scheme of things. Overall though, Wikipedia does not give this article much attention, which I think isn't right. This is a budding educational field and should be given the proper credence.

Evaluating Content
1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything in the article seems relevant to the actual novel, but I do not believe that all the information given is necessary for the article. Some areas of the article, like the Characters and Setting, are a little too in depth and lead the overall article to feel cluttered and make it hard to read/follow. In addition, there are some parts of the articles, such as the mention of Canterbury Tales and a separate heading for non-essential characters, also does not seem relevant to the article. The overall article is distracting and cluttered, making it difficult to pick up quick information.

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

The fact that there is so much information about small aspects of the article makes it difficult to find content gaps. However, there is no background and the lead, characters, and setting sections are too long and cluttered. In addition, the race critique of the novel could be fleshed out more, using information from the Merriman article.

3) What else could be improved?

Relaying the information in a more succinct manner would help the essential information be accessed in an easier manner.

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

I believe there is a little too much in the lead section, for example the mention of Canterbury Tales. It provides basic information, but does not include a quick summary of the entire novel, more so the setting. In addition, there is a little too much information about the reception of the novel as well as too much minute information about the novel (especially for the lead).

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

Some of the parts of the article, specifically the character and setting sections, read more as interpretation, especially because they are not cited by sources as well (for example, the section about Handmaids).

6) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoint that criticizes Atwood about her white feminism lens in the novel could be discussed more, it could be given more space because I believe the novel could have benefitted from intersectionality.

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

The links work, but they are far and few between. They help the article, but there just need to be more sources.

8) 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?

No, there are things that are said that are not supported by sources. The sources are good though, spanning from literary critiques, the novel, to press information regarding the novel.

Checking the Talk Page
9) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The talk page is busy and distorted by an influx of people who watched the Hulu series.

10) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

WikiProject Novels (C-class, high-importance)

WikiProject Philosophy (C-class, low-importance)

WikiProject Women Writers (C-Class, high importance)

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

The article does not include enough about the critique of Atwood in her use/appropriation of the African-American slave experience with the simultaneous erasure of POC in the novel.

Merriman/Rule Inclusion in the Article
Merriman - The racial critique of the novel could be fleshed out more in the Critical reception section, using information from the Merriman article.

Rule - Has many sources that are interviews with Atwood, and they would helpful in the construction in the missing Background section.

= Comparing the Article for Fun Home and the Article for Handmaid's Tale =

Differences Between the Two Articles
Overall, the Fun Home article is much better than the Handmaid's Tale, especially in terms of organization and fitting the sections asked for in handouts we've seen in class. The Fun Home article has images that illustrate the point made in the text, and the article as a whole is concise and succinct, but still having information readily available for readers.

Do you see areas where you can add to the Fun Home article despite its high rating?
If the article was given featured status in 2007, then perhaps the article could be updated with modern information (controversies, adaptions, or sequels) that might have occurred since the late 2000s. In addition, there could perhaps be less dedicated towards the musical, for it does have its own page (I am referencing specifically the paragraph about the musical in the Lead section and how all the musicals awards are listed, which I do not think is necessary).

= Potential Edit for Handmaid's Tale Article =

General Observation
The article for Handmaid's Tale is unorganized and cluttered, and many of the important aspects of the novel are written without citing a source.

Concrete Point of Evaluation
The paragraph about the Handmaids (in the Setting section) does not have a citation, and only a few words in the paragraph are linked to other Wikipedia articles.

Actionable Item
First of all, perhaps relocating this section to the plot summary section of the article, for a way to accurately cite this section would be citing the novel itself. In addition, finding academic articles and literary reviews of the novel would also help make this article more reliable. Finally, linking words and phrases to other Wikipedia articles would also improve this section.