User talk:MeganAnnMcSweeney/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' - Majority of the article was relevant to the topic and discussed factual information regarding the shooting.However, I did find the sections about "political reactions" and "gun control debate" to be slightly distracting and draw away from the central idea of the shooting itself. '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' - For the most part, I would say this article was very neutral while discussing the shooting and information about the shooter and people killed. The only part that contained bias toward a particular position was the section discussing gun control. There was a lot of information about the need for gun control and those who support gun control laws. However, there was not much talk about opposing views and why. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Again I would say the viewpoint supporting gun control laws were slightly over-represented. They were not biased but there were many examples of political leaders who support gun control in order to prevent instances like this shooting. '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' - After clicking on various citations I did not come across any problems with the links that were related. They all seemed to be viable sources and all related to the text. '''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?''' - Each fact referenced contains an appropriate reference. All the facts mentioned contain citations in order to help the reader understand points being made in more depth. A lot of the information comes from News sources and witnesses of the shooting. There is also information coming from students who know information about that shooter. '''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' - No information seems to be out of date, most likely being this was such a recent event and there are constant updates regarding the shooter and victims that have since been updated from numbers and evidence directly following the incident. I think more information could've been added to the shooting itself such as quotes from those involved. '''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?''' - There are a variety of conversations relating this incident to a white supremacists group and that being the motive behind the actions of the shooter. There is also talk about the weapon/s used by the shooter. '''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' - The talk page indicates that this article "is of interest to many WikiProjects". Most WikiProjects referenced fell under B and C class, meaning they are of low importance. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - Wikipedia discusses this topic from a fairly neutral point of view making it hard to relate directly to points made in class but this type of incident is something we have based discussion off this week. We discussed how most shootings and violent acts toward people are committed by males. The shooter of this incident was also male and he had made comments about school shooting and guns, which is something we also discussed, the idea that males use threats and weapons in order to asert domincance and gain respect even if it is inapproapriate

Sydnee's Peer Review
Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence?
 * Yes, it states what Home Girls is in a concise and understandable way.

Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing?
 * I thought the lead section was very strong and felt that it really summarized what the collection was about and what the women that contribute to it stand for/believe in. I also liked the "contributors" section, which allowed a further look into who these women were.

Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary?
 * I believe so, because the article continues to talk about the history and topics discussed, along with being backed up with facts.

Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?
 * I thought that the overall organization of the article was great. The topics were clearly divided with accurate headings and followed by information that belonged in that section. I really like the "audience response" section!

Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?
 * I think Megan made the lead into the article much better. She added more background on what the collection speaks on and what the authors stand by (which was really great in my opinion). The "topics discussed" section was also really good, because it gave a little taste on what the collection is about. She does need to add her citations, but she made a note of that. I would maybe add a little more on what topics are discussed, just to give a little more detail. The "audience response" section is also a really good idea and was well put together.

What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing?
 * She made the article come full circle with little details, which was very necessary. There are a few grammar and spacing mistakes, but those are easy fixes! I'm not sure when "black" needs to be capitalized and when it doesn't, so maybe stick to it either all being capitalized or all being lowercase!

Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced?
 * The coverage is very balanced. Each section is equal in length and quality.

Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * I feel that is presented in a very neutral tone. The tone is supported from direct quotes from the author and the public, which makes Megan's voice neutral and encyclopedic.

Where might the author consider revising the essay to make the tone sound more like that of an encyclopedia and less like an argument?
 * I feel that it is really neutral. The only thing I would reconsider is the opening sentence in the "audience response." Maybe to something along the lines of "critical reception has been both positive and negative."

Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references?
 * The only section missing supporting references is the "topics discussed" and Megan noted she needed to add them.

Are the sources cited the best available on the topic? Are they appropriate for the discipline/genre? If not, which sources might need to be changed? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, do they lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view?
 * I thought the sources sited were appropriate for this discussion. There are missing sources, but once they are adding in it will provide a more thorough reference section, which will make it look unbiased.

Do the references include completely filled out citation templates? If not, which ones need to be filled out?
 * The 2nd reference is not completely filled out. The others look good to me, though.

Overall, really great job!! Your article was really thorough and had plenty of information in it to get a full understanding of what Home Girls was about. Just little details need to be changed, but overall it looks ready for publishing to me! Sydnee — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydneeG (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review-Elissa
Does the introductory sentence state article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence? If not, how might the writer revise her introductory sentence?
 * Yes; I think that the introductory sentence is good as is.

Does the lead section summarize all major points in the article? If not, what’s missing?
 * Yes; I think that the lead does a good job of summing up the major points addressed in the article. It is concise and allows a good overview of what is to come in the article, and I liked the use of a direct quote.

Is the information included in the summary also present in the body of the article? If not, what needs to be removed from the summary?
 * Yes; I do not think anything needs to be taken out of the summary.

Are the topics well-organized and divided by headings and subheadings? Does the article cover the topic in organized, logical fashion? If not, how might the author consider revising the article to improve the organization?
 * Yes; I like the way that the article is broken up into "history," "topics," and "response," sections because it makes it easy to follow. I also think that the updating of the contributors list was very necessary!

Has the author added sections added to cover the topic more broadly and fill some existing gaps? If so, what are those additions? What else might be added?
 * Yes; I think the addition of the "topics discussed" section was a very good choice because it allows a brief insight into the book without going into what each of the individual writings is about. One thing I think you could do to add even further to this section is add links to other wiki pages on words/topics that you mention such as "intersectional," "gender oppression," and " LGBTQ+."

What smaller additions has the author added to relevant sections of the article? What else should the author consider adding or changing?
 * I think it was smart to break up the "history" section of the original article into a "history" section and an "audience response" section. If anything, I would suggest looking for another source in the response section, but I realize that might be tricky to find.

Is the coverage of the topic balanced? If not, what could the author add or change to make it seem more balanced? Where does the author present information in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * I think that you have done a very good job at making the article balanced and all of the sections seem to have equal importance. Your tone is also good!

Is every statement associated with a supporting reference? If not, mark the statements are missing supporting references?
 * Not everything is cited yet but I know that is something you said you are working on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elissamoody (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)