User talk:GenericNameUser/sandbox

GenericNameUser’s Wikipedia article is on the 1389 movement, a Serbian far-right nationalist movement. As the article describes, the movement derives its name from the 1389 Battle of Kosovo and can be considered controversial, because of its strong opinions, which clash with the West.

Overall, the article looks like a real Wikipedia page, making this sandbox entry a great start to this assignment. The pictures add general understanding for the reader and, for the most part, the writing uses that simple sentence structure preferred by Wikipedia articles. The formatting looks well done, with the headings, table of contents, and internal links working. Furthermore, the article does a good job of following the Wikipedia method of starting as simply as possible and increasing in complexity as the article continues.

One area in which the article does not match Wikipedia’s standards for the perfect article, however, is the controversy section. In general, Wikipedia articles usually do not leave text in single large paragraphs. Perhaps the article could include a paragraph break at the sentence starting with “another facet” and another paragraph break at the sentence starting with “much of the friction between.” (Also, the second half of the controversy section is uncited, but this might be because the author is still trying to figure out how to use the same reference multiple times.)

Furthermore, some of the sentences in the controversy section include more flowery language then a Wikipedia article typically would. For example, the sentence starting with “in this instant” uses two instances of more flowery language with the phases “in this instant in history” and “saw the beginning of its downfall.” Perhaps the sentence could be reworded to something like “After that incident, Serbian nationality became divided.”

The article also struggles somewhat with the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. For example, the article uses the phrase “such a contentious interpretation of history,” which seems to put a negative spin on those who hold different views of the event. A phrase like “the different views of the incident held by _________ and _________” would be more neutral. At other times in the article, the author is clearly working to keep the article neutral, which is a good step, including when she writes “the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, whom it identifies as a hero.” However, at other times, striving for neutral results in unclear language, such as with “expressing strong reactions to Serbian political integration,” which leaves the reader confused what those reactions are.

This article definitely fits Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, having “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” After reading the article, I felt like this is something important that I should have known about. I searched on Wikipedia to see if the movement was mentioned anywhere else, but found nothing on the 1389 movement specifically, but found many places where a link to this article could be added making it an excellent choice of topic for this assignment. Majora&#39;sMacro (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GenericNameUser's wikipedia article on the 1389 Movement describes the movement as well as the controversies and strong opinion that can be gathered from this event.

The article has the look of a real wikipedia page, and does meet the standards for the assignment. The article also as a whole reads as a wikipedia article with a great introduction and overview of the event as well as having several other sections that add to the article and its wikipedia authenticity. It seems as though the controversy section could be further developed and perhaps divided into several smaller sections. Additionally, there is a lack of citations in the controversy section that could detract from the articles legitimate as a wikipedia page.

I feel that the article was well written although maybe not as neutral as the perfect wikipedia article would suggest. I also really like the section on see also, as this gives the reader a way to look further into the topic without having to leave the page. Additionally, the links that they author provides throughout the article also add credibility to the article as a whole, as well as giving the reader further opportunities to look into the subject.

Overall a well written and looks like a real wikipedia article.

~ With regard to how I incorporated my reviewers' notes, I found that the biggest task I had ahead of me in editing was maintaining Neutral Point of View (NPOV). I changed the sections specifically mentioned, to remove covered-up bias, and then read over the page again to find similar patterns and adjust them accordingly. I believe that the page now reflects a much more effective NPOV and is a stronger article as a result. I also added a few more citations where needed (mainly in the "Controversy" and "History and Origin" sections) and broke up paragraphs to better suit Wikipedia's standards for blocks of text. Finally, I incorporated less-scholarly text throughout the document to adhere to Wikipedia's standard English needs. Over all, the article is much better thanks to teh suggestions of my reviewers and their more specific suggestions. GenericNameUser (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)