User talk:Graceballard/sandbox

Lead section

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The introductory sentence in this lead seems to be half-finished. I like the idea within this sentence regarding portrayals of bisexuality and how they can reflect wider understandings in popular culture, but having read the full article I am not sure that it accurately describes the rest of the piece. The author does a great job of listing bisexual characters, but there is not any aspect of analysis with regards to how that connects to larger aspects of societal attitudes.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The second sentence does a great job of summarizing the rest of the article, in that it mostly consists of itemized listing of bisexual characters in each medium with little analysis.

''Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)''

The lead introduces the idea of bisexuality in very broad terms, and then describes a lack of representation as noted by some scholars. I think that the information within the lead falls within the scope of the general article in that it discusses bisexuality and a lack of bi characters in Hollywood and beyond.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

In terms of details I found the lead to be well written, but there was a bit of awkward wording within the last sentence, even though the content itself was worthwhile. It may be beneficial to add some transitional sentences or words, but overall the lead properly portrayed the article to come in most ways. Content

''A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?'' The content provided within the article as a whole was perfectly relevant to the topic of bisexuality in media and film, and was organized well within several properly titled sections. Each section seemed to have citations maintaining their type throughout and many linked references as well. However, the lead mentioned that there was a reflection of “societal attitudes” which were not referenced in detail in any section.

Is the content up-to-date?

Through browsing the references and minimal notings of the year I was able to ascertain the most recent article or piece used. The most recent year mentioned was 2021, which is up to date, although the content of the article did not really reflect the plethora of bisexual characters and songs present in the current year.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The organization of this article made it a bit difficult to figure out what kind of content may or may not be missing, because much of it was simple listing of characters and their origin. Any analysis was done through describing whether a relationship or a character’s bisexuality was canon or not. Based on the first sentence within the lead, I would have expected further analysis on how those depictions of bisexuality connected to larger societal issues and attitudes.

''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?''

While the article did touch on bisexual representation in general, there was a noticeable lack of evident intersectionality within the author’s writing. One aspect of this topic that would have been relevant was how many of the roles listed were fulfilled by persons of color or gender-queer individuals. There was brief mention of the phenomenon/troupe within media to only hint at bisexuality without actual mention of the word itself, but this was not delved into.

Tone and Balance

Is the article from a neutral point of view?

From my reading of the article I believe it was neutral in its depiction of bisexual representation, and factual within its tone overall. Any questions regarding a particular character’s sexuality are described in an impartial manner and detailed so that the reader may understand both sides of the issue at hand. Some sections held more detail than others, with sections like “Music” receiving a brief reference to the history of bisexuality in music and a shortened list of songs with bisexual references. The songs listed were from a variety of years but not up to date with 2021.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

While the author is utilizing sources who posit that bisexuality is underrepresented within media, this is statistically supported through sources listed in the article. I would imagine that there is a miniscule amount of opinion pieces that would suggest the opposite, however this was not obviously noted in the article as a way of demonstrating an opposing argument.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The author demonstrates the intention to show bisexual representation in media and how it is a reflection of societal attitudes, but the article generally lists sources and their analysis with little to no sequeing from one topic to another. Overall the tone and content of the article demonstrated the viewpoint that bisexuality is underrepresented much more than any other viewpoint on the topic.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There are a few mentions of disagreements as to the sexuality of characters of intentions of content and these are noted as being arguments as well as their origins. Other than those view mentions, there are not significant minority or fringe viewpoints listed in this article.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Some sections read as lists of any reference to bisexuality within a character or their story, while others plainly reference articles or scholarly works that suggest an underrepresentation of bisexuality. Therefore, some sections seem to exist as a form of listing while others are persuasive toward the idea of underrepresentation and a widening of the discourse within sexuality.

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Depending on the section, many of the facts and lists written by the author stem from publications of websites specific to LGBT issues(such as Pride.com or The Advocate) or liberal-leaning sources. There is also reference to organizations such as the British Film Institute and GLAAD, the former being more of a reliable source, and the latter being a media monitoring organization to protect against LGBT defamatory coverage.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources in general are of a more casual stance, from publications which focus specifically on LGBT+ issues. They may be effective in listing bisexual characters, but in terms of analysis of the topic at large they do not reflect the range of societal and industry attitudes contributing to a lack of or abundance of bisexual characters.

Are the sources current?

The sources listed are largely from the last ten years, with the majority of them being within the last five years. This is obviously to be expected in an article detailing historical representation. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Some of the articles referenced come from publications that feature writers from a diverse spectrum, but there are no specifically referenced authors who are from historically marginalized backgrounds (their experience is not specifically referenced, so it is difficult to ascertain their impact if they are utilized in this article).

''Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)''

A quick google scholar search demonstrates thousands of peer-reviewed articles which specifically reference both the influence of those media roles(Sarah C. Gomillion MS & Traci A. Giuliano PhD (2011) The Influence of Media Role Models on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, Journal of Homosexuality, 58:3, 330-354, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2011.546729), and even the difference between stereotypes and success within those portrayals(Amber B. Raley BA & Jennifer L. Lucas PhD (2006) Stereotype or Success?, Journal of Homosexuality, 51:2, 19-38, DOI: 10.1300/J082v51n02_02). These barely scratch the surface of scholarly articles regarding bisexuality within media, so if the author’s intention was to do any sort of analysis regarding societal attitudes and bisexual portrayals through the years, they had a significant amount of material to choose from.

''Check a few links. Do they work?''

Yes they do.

Organization and writing quality

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

In some parts of the article it is clear and well-written, but others contain sentences that are too long or do not flow well. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some sentences are wordy or organized in a way which is slightly confusing, but generally it contains no spelling or grammatical errors.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article’s sections are well organized and the content relevant to that section is only within those barriers. However, I was left a bit confused by the general flow of each section because some went by chronological order, others seemed to simply be a list of bisexual characters, and still others had several referenced critiques or positive reviews of certain parts of that media.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are two pictures included in the article. One is of a pride parade next to the lead which supports but does not enhance understanding, and the other is of two people cosplaying bisexual characters for the anime and animated series section of the article. The second picture is interesting but does not necessarily support the topic.

Are images well-captioned?

The first is fairly informal (“somewhere in the U.S.” rather than noting a specific location), but the second is very well-captioned with the location, time, and characters referenced.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

They are displayed in the sections that they are meant to enhance, so I found them to be in the correct places for their intentions.

Talk page discussion

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

There were questions on the sexuality of four individuals referenced in the article, both fictional and real, but there were no responses to those questions. In addition to that there were modifications made to some external links and a reference to the redirection of this article from a list to its current format by other authors.

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

It is rated as Start-Class and is “of interest” to WikiProject LGBT studies, which works to enhance the coverage of LGBT topics.

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

Its status on the quality scale was at a level that I expected, but I was struck by the seriousness that Wikipedia discusses this article with, even if it appears to be more informal or lacks some substance. I appreciate this attitude, and the respect that was evident on the talk page from fellow users, because I can tell the level of seriousness that is part of the culture within Wikipedia.

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?

The article is still in the developing stages but needs better sources to be able to enhance its content. As I noted, many of the sources are very casual and do not lend to the stated purpose of the article.

What are the article's strengths?

It has a very comprehensive start to a list of bisexual characters and has several interesting arguments about bisexual representation noted.

How can the article be improved?

If the intention of the article was to compare societal attitudes to the media portrayal of bisexuals, then it falls very short of that goal but has the starting blocks in place. There must be some significant analysis or reference to peer-reviewed and scholarly works as well as a more clear means of organization within sections(one method of organization which is maintained throughout the article).

''How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?''Graceballard (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would assess this article as underdeveloped due to its lack of substantial sources and proper organization within sections. However, it is redeemed from poorly developed status due to the vast amount of information on bisexual characters and the larger discussions within each aspect of media briefly mentioned. (Graceballard (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC))