User:Will Schott/sandbox

= Evaluation of Taíno 10/8/19 = Taíno

What else could be improved?
The article is fairly up to date with citations from the current year, 2019. I am not an expert on the Taíno people so I can not say if there is content missing. However, the content in this article is incredibly through. The content of the article could be improved by adding a little more structure in the form of new sections.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The lead section does a good job of summarizing the entire article, however the tone is weak and is not well written and the sentences do not flow. The article is almost too neutral in tone. I do not see any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.

=
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 citations from this article are working and support the articles claim. However, there are some wikipedia articles listed as citations and I do not believe that these can be considered valid.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The talk page is almost non-existent with the exception of one author. The article is not part of any WikiProjects. The peer review has been archived. The archived report is extremely limited in information.

What else could be improved?
The content of the article is very well done. It has a great combination of both quality and quantity. Because this is an evaluation of a novel it is hard for the content to be out of date unless it is relating the book to something outside. The awards and academic reception seem to be up to date upon initial view. I could include more information about the television show and how it differ, while still keeping the page about the novel. However, it does not include a background or an analysis page. Content however is not very organized. The article too frequently related the book to the tv show and the movie. This is the page specifically regarding the book. There is too much relation between the two pages. There are large content gaps in relation to controversy on the books reception.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The lead section does not do a great job of summarizing all the content of the page. The tone of the article is mostly neutral, however, the third paragraph in the intro section which has no sources and makes several claims that are unsubstantiated.

=
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 sources on this page are from mostly reliable and come from a variety of trustworthy sources. they are all appropriately referenced. However, the there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims made in the article.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The talk page regarding this article is not great. There are numerous problems with article. Several conversations are going on regarding original research, spoiler alerts, satire and science fiction, and to the end of the plot, novels structure, subjection/subjugation...just to name a few. The article has a c rating and is part of the wikiprojects of novels, philosophy and women's writers. Some of the information on the talk page is useless opinions about the book and not about what the article is actually talking about.

Rule
Rule states "Although the Handmaid denies the scopic, her narrative returns again and again to images of her own body, as well as those of other women, in attempts to contextualize the changed political and physical significance of women's bodies under the Gileadean regime." Rule's article could be referenced in the Feminism section of critical reception. Although the article is mostly opinionated it could be referenced in a larger assertion.

Merriman
Merriman claims that "She[Atwood] deftly parodies the clumsy language of racial propaganda and offers a convincing portrait of the placid, banal evil of the religious extremists. The intersection between race and sex is itself hidden in plain sight, in the improbable but extremely sympathetic Offred, and only a cad would greet her with suspicion" Merrimans main point and the majority of his article can be used to fill the gaping content gape of racial controversy in the article.

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)

Merriman, Ben. "White-washing oppression in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale." Notes on Contemporary Literature, vol. 39, no. 1, 2009. Literature Resource Center, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A206534450/LitRC?u=wash43584&sid=LitRC&xid=a7ab0743. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019.

Concrete point of evaluation:
Regarding the third paragraph in the overview section of the handmaids tale contains an opinionated sentence: "This novel can be interpreted as a double narrative, Offred's tale and the handmaids' tales." There is not citation of this option or evidence to prove that it is a double narrative. This is an unsourced opinion. A quick search does not reveal a source to back up this opinion. My feeling is that there is not a double narrative in the Handmaid's tale but simple a novel that it is narrated through two time periods. My recommendation is that this section should be deleted.

= Evaluation of Fun Home = The Fun Home article has far better organization of content as well as the display of information. Handmaid's page includes too much information concerning the tv show and the movie mediums of the story, whereas, the Fun Home book page keeps the Musical page information separate apart from the section in the background. This musical adaptation section should either be moved or deleted entirely from the page. Whereas the Handmaid's tale background portion was off base and did not follow Wikipedia's guidelines for evaluating an article, Fun Homes background section is very well done. Fun Home page can be updated in relation to what has happened now with the challenges to the novel. Additionally, more information can be added to the challenging of the book at Duke University. The source is valid, the article just needs to pull more information from the article. One could also add a section on Graphic Novel terminology and how it is present throughout Fun Home.

Concrete point of evaluation:
Under the themes section of the Fun Home Wikipedia article there is an unsubstantiated opinion: "The underlying theme of death is also portrayed. Unlike most young people, the Bechdel children have a tangible relationship with death because of the family mortuary business." The citation provided for this is two pages from the book Fun Home itself. Because the citation is the book and not a secondary source regarding the Novel it is an opinion. There are several articles regarding themes of Fun Home on the internet that could be referenced instead of the book itself.