User:Torybigelow/sandbox

Peer Review 1.
This edit gives us some basic grammar choices, like changing sentence structure for a couple of sentences. I think they did a good job of giving us ways to consolidate the article. For example, ""white actors through blackface, brownface, and yellow face in a derogatory, intellectually lessen manner" - word choice: intellectually demeaning manner?," which I prefer their word choice here. I also agree with the other grammatical choices of adding a comma and standardizing our formatting of words like "white" and "black." Consistency is important.

The only question raised in the article was about Minstrel shows, which I agree is a very confusing sentence. Instead we should reword it to describe Minstrel shows, then move to describe why this promoted ethnically white behavior and harmed the view of other ethnicities.

Henry's Review
The first bullet point is a review of one of the cited sources, and it points out that the source is not academic. This is really important to note, as we will have to remove the section in the article pertaining to that source unless we find an academic source to back it up. The second bullet point asks us if we think it could be worth it to add something like a progress section. I actually think that this is a really good idea because then we can almost document the growing and changing efforts. That will make it easier to update the article in the future. Plus it will consolidate a lot of the information in the article so that when the readers get to the end they have a bit of a summary about where Inequality in Hollywood is at today. The final bullet point mentions the goals of including social movements around inequality in Hollywood, and I agree that the goal of adding those points is to talk about them as ongoing efforts. It might be a good idea if we make the new section to put these movements within this section. Or at least speak on where the movements are at now in the new section.

Hannah's Review
These edits were all about consolidation and I think Hannah pointed out some really great ways to make the voice of the article more direct and active. She definitely condensed some of our more wordy sentences. This is really helpful and I think it's a really good idea to reread the article specifically looking for ways that we can consolidate further. The more concise the article can be the better. Overall, she gives us a really good structure and suggestions to improve our paragraphs.

Siddharth Kumaran's Review

 * Great job on adding new sections
 * All the sections are well written and to the point
 * All the sections are well written and to the point
 * You guys maintain un-biased neutrality in all section, so good job!
 * Every section has the right amount of information
 * All your edits to the pre-existing changes are substantial and meaningful
 * You guys have a good variety of sources
 * Overall, I feel like you guys put in a lot of quality time into this assignment
 * I personally didn't see any grammar mistakes
 * Capitalize 'inequality' in the section title "History of Racial inequality in Hollywood"

Thank you for all the positive feedback, we'll be sure to properly capitalize the "I" in the section title "History of Racial inequality in Hollywood"

Samir's Review
We agree giving examples of prominent figures in the #Metoo movement like Kevin Spacey would be helpful and insightful so we'll try to add more examples. Also the line "made it onto the big screens of Hollywood" in the "History of Racial Inequality in Hollywood" section could be more formal so we'll try to stay away from informal language structure. In the future we'll consider the use of prominent figures as examples, especially in both the #Metoo and #OscarsSoWhite section. Thank you for pointing out the potential neutrality concerns with some of our sources, we'll be sure to sift through them to insure we don't pull any information from a biased source.

Isabel's Review
Thank you for your reassuring comments. We will be sure to correct the grammar mistakes in the #OscarsSoWhite section. You are correct Female, Male, and White do not have to be capitalized.

Peer Review: Birks Sachdev
1) I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectually lessen manner" under the section "History of Racial Inequality in Hollywood". Perhaps you could change this to "yellow face in a derogatory manner, in an effort to portray them as intellectually inferior". This would work better.


 * This seems like a definite improvement to our original wording. It tightens the wording and makes it less suspect to sounding like an analytical comment, especially because as this improvement takes place in the lead sentence of the section. Noted, and will change in our next draft.

2) Instead of presenting the changes in bullet points, try rewriting entire paragraphs from the article and improving the overall flow.


 * I agree. I initially organized the structure of our draft this way because there was a lot of moving parts. Having them in bullet points, I thought, might make it seem easier to see all of the changes as stand-alone, so readers could edit point by point. But, after looking through other peers’ articles, it definitely makes more sense to organize our draft like a regular Wikipedia article. The layout makes it easier to read and easier to make changes in the context of the how the article might actually look.

3) Would it be possible to add new information altogether about gender inequality from a historical context, to show how it has changed over time? Remember to retain a neutral tone!


 * Yes, it would! If you have any further suggestions besides a history of gender inequality in that section, our group would be open to more ideas. We’re also thinking of documenting non-acting roles and how gender disparity manifests there, such as the lack of female directors.

4) You could potentially add new subsections on Inequality in Hollywood with other ethnic groups, similar to how you wrote one on "Asian Inequality". This would provide valuable information to readers and you could use recent information which would be very relevant to the topic at hand.


 * Looking back at the original article, more ethic subsections under Racial Inequality would make a lot of sense. I’m thinking of the Latinx and North African and Middle Eastern/Arabic groups who experience similar but distinct sets of discrimination. We’ll research this more, and hopefully will be able to add these important subsections.

Cxndyoh Peer Review
Your draft is very well written, and I can't wait to see the final edits. You did very well in organizing potential edits and in keeping a neutral tone. Here are some potential edits:

Under History of Racial inequality in Hollywood:

I had some confusion in understanding what Minstrel shows were. It would be helpful to have a brief explanation of it.


 * I can see how no context preceding that sentence may leave readers confused with what Minstrel shows are. If we choose not to provide context for the sake of space (since the shows were a small part of the overall history), I think we’ll opt to hyperlink the word “Minstrel Shows” to its respective Wikipedia article. That way, if readers are unfamiliar with the term, they have an ease of access to find it.

"By the 1940’s and 1950’s, many ethnically white actors and actresses got into the spotlight by swapping out their culturally ethnic names for more widely accepted “white” names. Oppositely this left non-white actors out of work and cast aside.[6]"-- When you say ethnically white actors and actresses, I'm assuming you are referring to white people but I'm not sure what you mean by culturally ethnic names for more widely accepted "white" names.


 * I think our team meant perhaps Christian names. However, I agree that this is reaching into non-neutral territory. We will rewrite this part to address this issue while using more definite and less ambiguous terms.

You mentioned interracial marriage or relationship status as limiting factors to the people of color getting lead roles, but how did white actors/actresses play the role of initially the person of color with such appearance as blackface when it shouldn't have been portrayed in film in the first place? Clarifying this or using a different example might be better.


 * Clarification for this statement will be needed. Specifically, we will clarify the law in Hays code and read further on how blackface was exempted from that law.

Me Too
Would be good to put "twitter hashtag #MeToo" with the hash symbol. As notable names and figures were cited in this section, the team could redirect the names to their respective Wikipedia pages and specific sections in relation to the content, e.g. Alyssa Milano.


 * Good catches! Both types of changes will be reflected in the next draft as quality of life edits.

History of Racial Inequality in Hollywood
The part about where to this day, people of color are still fighting to get equal opportunities, was there used for this statement?


 * Looking back, I agree. This last statement should be omitted because it sounds biased. I think our team originally included because we did not know how to conclude that subsection.

#OscarsSoWhite
Is there a reason why "white" was written with a capital 'W'? What kind of 'major backlash' did the Oscars get? Who are some of the Hollywood celebrities of color who expressed their views? What did they say?


 * You pose an interesting question. We modeled the capitalization rules in the hashtag based on the original hashtag. In-text capitalization of White seems parallel to capitalizing Asian or Middle Eastern or Latin. However, we will look further into this issue to see what is the correct standardization.
 * We chose not to include too much information regarding the #OscarSoMovements because we linked this subsection to the main article of the 88th Oscars, where there is a more complete repository of the movement’s history. If we find a need to expand on this section specifically about more inequality metrics, we’ll definitely include them!

Possible Articles to Work On

 * 1) Chasing Coral - it's a documentary that came out in 2017 and is trying to start a social movement and awareness for coral reefs around the world. The wikipedia page doesn't have a lot of content on it and I feel like there's a lot more to the documentary. I was thinking I could outline the plot of the documentary, based off of other Wikipedia pages that I observed on documentaries. I can also add a section for the social movement that's behind the documentary. It can also feature the scientists and divers that participated in the documentary. Chasing Coral
 * 2) World Clean Up Day - I noticed this is a really short article. It doesn't really talk about which organizations are involved in it, nor does it talk about which countries participate. I think this could be a good article to work on because it doesn't have a rating yet, but it also doesn't have an importance rating so it might not be high priority enough to work on it. World Cleanup Day
 * 3) Alzheimer's Association - Reading through this page it mainly focuses on the events and achievements of the association. The association provides a lot of resources that can be very helpful to those suffering to from the disease and for their families. I thought this article could be improved by adding a section about the functionality of the association and what they actually provide and do. Alzheimer's Association

Article Evaluation of 'Climate Movement'
This article is really lacking substance. For a topic that has a lot of hashtags embedded within it, as well as being a massive topic globally, the article is short. It only covers a few of the activist groups associated with the climate movement.

The history section should mention what series of events led to the boom of this movement in the late 21st century. It mentions that major environmental organizations began talking about climate, but the article would be better if it talked about why the organizations began to notice climate more and more. The history itself is rich, especially regarding the social aspect and growth of climate change. It would be interesting to know which countries led the movement and how they influenced other countries.

The article touches on 4 groups and their movements, but only writes 4 small paragraphs. The article leaves out many other movements surrounding climate movements.

The article doesn't seem biased at all, but it does feel like a bullet point list of random facts. The citations check out as well and aren't from any bad sources. The talk page doesn't have much of a conversation behind it, but does mention the fact that it is US focused when the climate movement is largely global.