User talk:Gracepchicken/sandbox

Peer Review: Hello, I really liked that you added the physical description and personality to the article. That brings in more because the original article says “ The Bogeyman has no specific appearance, and conceptions vary drastically by household and culture, but is commonly depicted as a masculine or androgynous monster that punishes children for misbehavior” But I think that everyone even though it may not be the same can picture what it would look or be like. The only thing that I saw that needed work was the part you already noticed "Other Examples" didn’t have the correct sourcing. Overall, I think you did awesome! What a fun article to be adding too.

Draft feedback
I see some good additions and citations woven in here--you've done a nice job looking at multiple sections of this article. The personality additions are a strong new element. My one note in that section is that "the kind that are more extreme" is vague and I don't know what the reader of that phrase is intended to understand by it.

My biggest suggestions as you're continuing to improve and edit this article:
 * You're right to be suspicious of the two sites you link for that long list of "other" versions of the bogeyman: one cites this same Wikipedia article as its only source (which makes it a poor source to use here), and the other is a personal blog in which the author doesn't note at all where they got their information and has no clear authority to add to the information already in the Wikipedia article (and since it's essentially a summary of information to begin with, it would be very hard to paraphrase anything meaningful out of it). If you've used these sources elsewhere in the article, I would remove those references as well.
 * I see the flipped sections near the top (parts of the "etymology" section and the "other putative origins" section), and would recommend returning the material that was originally under "etymology" to that section and moving the addition about hobgoblins to the "other putative origins" section--etymology is the study of the history of a word, so the discussion about linguistic origins fits firmly in that section. The discussion of hobgoblins isn't having a conversation about the language, but rather the origin of the idea, so would fit better in the later section.
 * Sources. I spot-clicked through on several new or updated citations in the "Analogues in other cultures" section, and some of the sites that they link to don't seem to mention these analogues at all...make sure that the sources you're linking to truly support the information they're connected to in the article.

The one other thing that stands out to me as an easy reach for editing over the next week is the lead section. The article currently focuses on the broad range of bogeymen across many countries, cultures, etc., but that isn't currently previewed in the lead. Can that information (probably a sentence or two) be added, and are there any clues in the lead about areas in the article that could still be expanded?

Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to seeing the revision of this! Nicoleccc (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Testing
Only new material here

Article evaluation
The article I am evaluating is ... Sobek (C-class article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobek - While everything is relevant, the topics are mushed together to lengthen the paragraphs in each section, causing some difficulties in understanding what it means. - People seem to be keeping a good eye for information being out of date or incorrect, (such as the lost idol) - The only thing I feel is truly missing is some sort of beginning for Sobek. They explain his character and appearance, but not the reason he came to be. - The general flow of the article could be improved. - They are very good at keeping a neutral tone and having no bias. - It is very clear that they believe Sobek to be EXTREMELY violent. I feel this is over represented. - Only a few sources seem to have any issues in the past, but I believe they all are being used properly. (At least the ones I checked) - These are all science based sources, that I feel are unbiased. - They seem to want to combine this with another god, and debate on the validity of some information in the article. (The lost idol and anything with war involved.) - This is rated a C-class article, and is apart of the Ancient Egypt Wiki project. Gracepchicken (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation
The article I am evaluating is Gekko https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gekko (stub article) - Information is very simple, and it is not easy to understand. - I would separate things like habitat, coloration, and different species/subspecies by locating. (possibly even mating habits) - The list of species is cool, but it doesn't replace the need for proper information. Some references I've looked at: - http://www.ladywildlife.com/animals/gecko.html - WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, Stub-Class, and High-importance. There is also no talk page, despite it being of high importance. (kind of a dead end) - This is a very fact based article, so I consider it unbiased. Gracepchicken (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Gracepchicken (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation
The article I am evaluating is Cobra https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra (stub article) - a part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, Stub-Class, and High-importance. (level-4 vital article) - The article is very vague, and lacks important details to make the information flow. - From what I read on the talk page, there seems to be missing links/incorrect links, incorrect information, and miss-translates. Resources I would add: - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/k/king-cobra/ - https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/cobra\ - https://www.britannica.com/animal/cobra-snake

-I would add more information on each species, as they did that to some but not all. I would discuss the mating habits, the look/habitats, and expand on the basic biology of the cobra. - This is a unbiased article, that is all facts, and would be difficult to make biased. Gracepchicken (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Gracepchicken (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation
The article I am evaluating is Bogeyman https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogeyman (stub article) - This is apart of the WikiProject Horror(its a Start-Class, and is Top-importance), WikiProject Mythology(its a Start-Class, and is Mid-importance), and WikiProject Folklore(its a Start-Class, and is Top-importance). - From taking a quick glance at the article, and the talk page shows you the poor sourcing done on the article. - They have great background, but don't quite go into the more modern twists that are associated with the Bogeyman. - The resources I would add: - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/what-is-the-bogeyman/ - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bogeyman

- I would maybe add in the use of it in families. - There also seems to be miss-translated words that have caused lots of confusion for readers. - This is a very unbiased article in my oppinion, as its a fact driven article. Gracepchicken (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Gracepchicken (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

GRACEGracepchicken (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

NEW REFERENCES: https://mythology.net/mythical-creatures/bogeyman/

Gracepchicken (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations and links
Hi!I just decided to through this in here so I can come back to this. The articles I added links to; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogeyman_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wick#Character my citation was the 3rd one, and I feel that it helped. the links I added my article was: Germanic folklore, Dutch dialect, hallucination. Gracepchicken (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Choose a Topic" feedback
Hi, Grace! I'm reading the bottom 3 (the stub/start class) articles here as the ones for your "choose a topic" assignment.

Gekko: Interesting! I'm surprised that this page is so bare-bones with this many recognized species. I would be curious what distinguishes this genus from other genera of the broader Gecko category. I'm curious whether you were (or will be) able to find sources other than the .com you noted here. In your initial searching, was there a broad range of sources and this is just one example of those, or is this the only source you found? The trickiest element of this article might be not crossing into information that really belongs in the bigger "Gecko" category.

Cobra: You've located some good general Web sources for this one and I imagine this would be an easy topic to find a wide range of sources on. The biggest thing that gives me pause about this article as a project is that one of the most recent Talk page notes for it points to the Naja page (the cobra genus) as the already well-developed page for cobras and suggests the "Cobra" page you're looking at here should be deleted.

Bogeyman: This one has a robust talk page conversation, and fairly recent activity. Sourcing of existing information in the article would be one excellent approach for this one. I do wonder how challenging finding a robust range of sources (for the existing material or for new additions) will be...playing with search terms and alternate spellings will be important, I imagine.

I think any of these three can work for this project, although I would encourage you toward either the Gekko or Bogeyman man one since the Cobra article seems to essentially be a duplicate listing. Whichever one is either most interesting to you or has the best range of sources might be your best one to work on for this class. Nicoleccc (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation feedback
You do a really nice job balancing observations about what this article is already doing well with notes about where/how it could be stronger and giving some specific examples to support these components of your evaluation. I see good discussion around content, clarity, bias, and sources. The only spot that was momentarily unclear to me was the mention of "they" who wanted to combine this with another article. I had to look at this a second time to gather that this was about the conversations happening among editors on the talk page. Nicoleccc (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)