User:Literature8/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Drama (graphic novel)

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • I found the immense summary section in Drama distracting. Furthermore, some part of the summary are not 100 percent accurate. While relevant, it actually gives the entire story away down to minute details. I also found the themes section lacking. There are certainly more themes than just hegemonic masculinity and queer identity. If these sections are so long, then certainly other themes should be touched on. The character list is also extremely helpful and detailed. There are some grammatical errors throughout the article.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • The article does not touch much on the graphic novel aspect and style. An analysis section is also lacking and could use improvement. The article is very up to date. However, the controversy section could probably be updated, as the last example came from 2014.
• What else could be improved?
  • There are currently only 14 sources in this article. For such a lengthy page, more sources could and should be added.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is generally neutral. I was particularly impressed with the controversies section, which remained neutral and used quotes. It even drew from sources like Common Sense Media and the author's response.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The viewpoints of the author are very represented but this is a good thing. More could be added about the publisher's viewpoint and their defense.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Links work, and there is even a pop up display for the ISBN number. The article contains an impressive number of links.
• 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?
  • The sources are generally neutral or reliable. Many sources come from interviews. More sources could be added though.
• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • The conversations are mostly about how to add relevant information to the article. Interestingly enough, not much is said about removing any information. I found the addition of an image useful so readers know what the Wikipedia article, titled Drama, is about
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is unrated. It would be helpful to get the article rated for viewers.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • Wikipedia's discussion is similar but less in depth. There are less opinion included in the Wikipedia page, and less themes are touched upon.

Article Evaluation: Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • The effects of stereotypes section was relevant but seemed lengthy. The film section was also interesting but not necessarily relevant and lacked examples of movies.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Most information is up to date. I think that the section about sports mascots could be updated about recent controversies.
• What else could be improved?
  • The article mostly presents stereotypes and leaves out ways that indigenous people. The Inuit section needs sourcing and wikipedia addresses this. This section could also be expanded. More examples must be given, and certain groups cannot be ignored or left out.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is relatively neutral stating facts and not opinions. However, it does give examples of quotes which are described as opinions as introduced correctly.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The viewpoint of the one using the stereotypes are not addressed, but I do not think this is necessary. The article evaluates many issues. South and Central American viewpoints about indigenous peoples are completely absent.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Most of the articles have links of ISBN numbers that are relevant and work. However, more sources are needed for this article. One link to citation 7 is not longer available.
• 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?
  • The sources are mostly neutral coming from notable websites or news articles. Some entire sections of the article lack sources altogether. Not each fact is referenced. Many times an entire section has one source. Biases are never noted throughout the article.
• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • People are generally upset about the lack of content in the article. Because there are so many different native peoples, not all stereotypes are referenced. All of South and Central America's indigenous people are excluded. there is controversy whether this is a necessary topic among contributors and just how to break the article down and what to include.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This is a Wikimedia project. This rating is a B for WikiProject sociology, discrimination and human rights, a moderately edited and rated article. The project is rated Start Class by Indigenous peoples of North America.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • Wikipedia addressing these facts in much more detail than in class and lays out specific issues. However, it does not encompass the entire scope of the issue nor could it.

Article Evaluation: Hispaniola

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Most of the article is relevant to Hispaniola. The last section of precious metals is distracting and overly detailed in my opinion. Although interesting, it belongs in a section that aligns more with Spanish colonization than Hispaniola.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • The page could use some more info on the flora and fauna of Hispaniola and is extremely lacking in modern day facts. The page mostly centers around Columbus and his impact with colonization.
• What else could be improved?
  • The article overall focuses on the history of Hispaniola and not the Dominican Republic and Haiti of today. This could be expanded in greater detail. Citation also must be improved.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is very neural overall stating facts about colonization and the modern day economics of the island. There do not appear to be many biases in the article.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The viewpoint on colonization is important to the article but might be a little overrepresented. The article gets into specific details on Spanish practices where it could focus more on the island itself.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The citations do work and the sources do support the distinct claims. However, more citations need to be added. There are large sections relying on one citation or missing citations.
• 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?
  • More references must be added, but the citations that are present are reliable and generally neutral. These references include work fact-books, government data, and trustworthy scholarly articles. The article also asks for more references in places to back up certain claims.
• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There is some serious controversy in the talk section about the naming of the island by Europeans and the United States without the Dominican Republic or Haiti's permission.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is rated on a B class by both WikiProject Caribbean and WikiProject Islands. The article was rated top importance. It is a level 4 vital article in geography. The article is also supported by WikiProject Dominican Republic and WikiProject Haiti.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • Wikipedia discusses the topic similarly to the way we have discussed it in class. It makes many references to the Taino people and Columbus' impact on the island in terms of subjugation of natives and slavery. It does lack some of the general information needed about the island. There are also issues with grammar and wording that need to be revised.

Article Evaluation: A Wrinkle in Time (Film 2018)

• • What does the article have/cover that is mentioned in the handout?
    • Lead Section
      • The lead section covers a lot in a little bit of space but goes into too much detail in areas. It talks not only about the cast and the budget but also about where it was filmed and the timeline as well as screenings of the film.
    • Plot synopsis
      • This section is good but excessively long. it needs to be condensed for a more succinct and concise outline of the plot. It could possibly say just see Wrinkle in Time (book) summary and then note the differences between the novel and the film.
    • Production
      • The production section is extremely detailed and adds a lot to the article.
    • Cast
      • The casting portion of the article in good and detailed. it also includes a filming section which might be too long for the article. I understand if it is noteworthy, it should be included, but this section is longer than cast which seems excessive. The music section should be moved down and also include a soundtrack
    • Release
      • The release section seems short for a film of this magnitude. More details should be found to add about film festivals and marketing strategy.
    • Reception
      • The reception article is very long and includes both box office sails and reviews. Not much should be added form this section. The section does include broad reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which should not be included. More notable and scholarly articles should be found instead of these broad sources for reviews.
  • What is missing and could be added to the article?
    • I would add a section about the soundtrack as well as awards and themes. Even if the film had no awards, that is a notable thing to include. A themes section would help the plot summary, but it must be succinct as well and only cover a few major themes of the film.

Additional Resource for the film: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA530684477&docType=Audio+file%2C+Broadcast+transcript%2C+Movie+review&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=LitRC&contentSet=GALE%7CA530684477&searchId=R1&userGroupName=wash43584&inPS=true

Article Evaluation: Persepolis (Comics)

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • The long summaries and character lists were distracting. Not all of these details were relevant. There was also an excess of quote sin the article that could be paraphrased. These were also distracting. The choice to list awards and focus on these so early in the article was also distracting.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • The information is mostly up to date because the book is not very old. However, many citations are missing, especially directly citing the book, and these could be added. More about the movie could be added in a different article or in a clearer distinct section. The background could also use some more information.
• What else could be improved?
  • Citation and paraphrasing as well as length of summaries and character list were major flaws. The infobox could also use more detail. Overall, it was difficult to tell which book was being discussed for awards and publication dates, There needs to be better separation between the two graphic novels.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is generally neutral. Even the reception section on censorship remained pretty neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Most viewpoints are addressed and the article does a good job of getting to the facts, even if too many details are included. There are too many quotations. This should be fixed as many are not necessary and can be paraphrased.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Most citation were working. There was a long in the beginning of the reception section for a paper that did not work and was not properly cited. Overall, the article needed more citations.
• 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?
  • Not each fact is sourced. This could be easily fixed because many times the book could be used as a source.
• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There is some controversy over what the book should be called on the talk page. Graphic novel, etc.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is flagged for multiple issues. The article was rated Start-Class for quality scale and mid-importance on the importance scale. It has not yet been checked for a grade
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • It does not include analysis. This is a necessary section.

As a book:

Lead section: Has good information about the book, but does not summarize the entire article. Possibly add more about plot or themes as well as controversy. Focuses a portion on the movie. This could be reduced to one sentence.

Background: Does not include any details of Satrapi's other works and combines awards between two books. Might be more effective to split paragraphs based on the books to avoid confusion. Only mentions the actual background of the story for a few sentences. Awards are included, but I am not sure if they should be in this section.

Summary: I like how the summary is split between the two separate books clearly but they are excessively long,. Instead of getting into so much detail the entire book could be summarized in two paragraphs. the summary for the second book is particularly long and detailed. This section is lacking sources. Sources from each book should be used here.

Genre: This is perhaps the most useful and well crafted section of the article. It includes many sources and details on the type of novel and the effects of using this genre. This section includes quotations which should be paraphrased.

Analysis: There is no analysis for these books. These should be included and are necessary for the article. Instead, a long and unnecessary character list takes the place of an analysis section. This section has no sources. The books should be used as sources.

Publication: This section contains useful details and is the correct length. However, more than one source should be used.

Reception: The reception section is well sources and constructed. It is the right length and brings up issues of literary censorship. Some quotes in this section should be paraphrased. Awards mentioned earlier should be moved to this section. The awards list is incomplete.

Others: There is a film and Persepolis 2.0 section. These are too short and under sourced. The film section is particularly lacking in detail. The film section could simply state there was a film and contain a link to the film page.

Infobox: There is an infobox, but because they are two separate books, shouldn't there be two different ISBN numbers and publication dates? Maybe update for both novels.

Adding Information to the Article on Hispaniola:

Pre-Columbian Section Draft:

The primary indigenous group on the island of Hispaniola was the Arawak/Taino people.^[1] The Arawak tribe originated in the Orinoco Delta, spreading from Venezuela.^[1] They travelled to Hispaniola around 1200 CE.^[2] Each society on the island was a small independent kingdom with a lead known as a cacique.^[3] In 1492, which is considered the peak of the Taino, there were five different kingdoms on the island,^[1] the Xaragua, Higuey (Caizcimu), Magua (Huhabo), Ciguayos (Cayabo or Maguana), and Marien (Bainoa).^[3] Many distinct Taino languages also existed in this time period.^[4] There is still heated debate over the population of Taino people on the island of Hispaniola in 1492, but estimates range upwards ofThe 750,000.^[5]

An Arawak/Taino home consisted of a circular building with woven straw and palm leaves as covering.^[3] Most individuals slept in fashioned hammocks, but grass beds were also used.^[1] The cacique lived in a different structure with larger rectangular walls and a porch.^[3] The Taino village also had a flat court used for ball games and festivals.^[3] Religiously, the Arawak/Taino people were polytheists, and their gods were called zemí.^[3] Religious worship and dancing were common, and medicine men or priests also consulted the zemí for advise in public ceremonies.^[3] For food, the Arawak/Taino relied on meat and fish as a primary source for protein;^[2] some small mammals on the island were hunted such as rats, but ducks, turtles, snakes, and bats as a common food source.^[3] The Taino also relied on agriculture as a primary food source.^[2] The indigenous people of Hispaniola raised crops in a conuco, which is a large mound packed with leaves and fixed crops to prevent erosion.^[3] Some common agricultural goods were cassava, maize, squash, beans, peppers, peanuts, cotton, and tobacco, which was used as an aspect of social life and religious ceremonies. ^[3]

The Arawak/Taino people travelled often and used hollowed canoes with paddles when on the water for fishing or for migration purposes,^[3] and upwards of 100 people could fit into a single canoe.^[1] The Taino came in contact with the Caribs, another indigenous tribe, often.^[3] The caribs lived mostly in modern day Puerto Rico and northeast Hispaniola and were known to be hostile towards other tribes.^[3] The Arawak/Taino people had to defend themselves using bow and arrows with poisoned tips and some war clubs.^[3] When Columbus landed on Hispaniola, many Taino leaders wanted protection from the Caribs.^[3]

Info-Bar

Added information about the area covered of each country.

For some reason Info-bar cannot be manually edited so both countries appear under administration.

Precious Metals Removing Quotes

Previous: While Columbus established a new settlement at [[La Isabela]] on Jan. 1494, he sent [[Alonso de Ojeda]] and 15 men to search for the "mines of Cibao." After a six-day journey, Ojeda came across an area "very rich in gold", in which the "Indians took gold out of a brook...and many other streams in that province." Columbus himself visited the mines of Cibao on 12 March 1494.

Revised: While Columbus established a new settlement at [[La Isabela]] on Jan. 1494, he sent [[Alonso de Ojeda]] and 15 men to search for the mines of Cibao. After a six-day journey, Ojeda came across an area containing gold, in which the gold was extracted from streams by the Taino people. Columbus himself visited the mines of Cibao on 12 March 1494.

Previous: On 24 March 1495, Columbus with his ally [[Guacanagarix]], embarked on a war of revenge against Caonabo, capturing him and his family while "killing many Indians and capturing others." Afterwards, "every person of fourteen years of age or upward was to pay a large hawk's bell of gold dust."

Revised: On 24 March 1495, Columbus with his ally [[Guacanagarix]], embarked on a war of revenge against Caonabo, capturing him and his family while killing and capturing many natives. Afterwards, every person over the age of fourteen had to produce a hawksbill of gold.

Previous: [[Ferdinand II of Aragon|Ferdinand]] "ordered gold from the richest mines reserved for the Crown." Thus, Ovando expropriated the gold mines of Miguel Diaz and Francisco de Garay in 1504, as pit mines became royal mines, though [[placer mining|placers]] were open to private prospectors. Furthermore, Ferdinand wanted the "best Indians" working his royal mines, and kept 967 in the San Cristobal mining area supervised by salaried miners.

Revised: Ovando expropriated the gold mines of Miguel Diaz and Francisco de Garay in 1504, as pit mines became royal mines for [[Ferdinand II of Aragon|Ferdinand]], who reserved the best mines for himself, though [[placer mining|placers]] were open to private prospectors. Furthermore, Ferdinand kept 967 natives in the San Cristobal mining area supervised by salaried miners.

Previous: Under [[Nicolás de Ovando y Cáceres]]' governorship, the Indians were made to work in the gold mines, "where they were grossly overworked, mistreated, and underfed," according to Pons.

Revised: Under

Previous: By 1503, the Spanish Crown legalized the distribution of Indians to work the mines as part of the [[encomienda]] system. According to Pons, "Once the Indians entered the mines, hunger and disease literally wiped them out." By 1508 the Indian population of about 400,000 was reduced to 60,000, and by 1514, only 26,334 remained. About half were located in the mining towns of Concepcion, Santiago, Santo Domingo, and Buenaventura. The [[repartimiento]] of 1514 accelerated emigration of the Spanish colonists, coupled with the exhaustion of the mines. In 1516, a smallpox epidemic killed an additional 8,000, of the remaining 11,000 Indians, in one month. By 1519, according to Pons, "Both the gold economy and the Indian population became extinct at the same time."

Revised: By 1503, the Spanish Crown legalized the distribution of Indians to work the mines as part of the [[encomienda]] system. Pons says that once the Indians entered the mines, they were often wiped out by hunger and difficult conditions. By 1508 the Indian population of about 400,000 was reduced to 60,000, and by 1514, only 26,334 remained. About half were located in the mining towns of Concepcion, Santiago, Santo Domingo, and Buenaventura. The [[repartimiento]] of 1514 accelerated emigration of the Spanish colonists, coupled with the exhaustion of the mines. In 1516, a smallpox epidemic killed an additional 8,000, of the remaining 11,000 Indians, in one month

Previous: However, writing in 1860, Courtney observed, the island is "one immense gold field", of which the early Spaniards had "scarcely began to be developed." Additionally, "The gold is still found in the Cibao regions as of old."<ref name="Courtney">{{cite book|last1=Courtney|first1=W.S.|title=The Gold Fields of St. Domingo|date=1860|publisher=Anson P. Norton|location=New York|pages=123–125}}</ref> By 1919, Condit and Ross noted "the greater part of the Republic is covered by concessions granted by the government for mining minerals of diverse sorts."

Revised: However, writing in 1860, Courtney observed that the island contained a large supply of gold, of which the early Spaniards had hardly developed.<ref name="Courtney">{{cite book|last1=Courtney|first1=W.S.|title=The Gold Fields of St. Domingo|date=1860|publisher=Anson P. Norton|location=New York|pages=123–125}}</ref> By 1919, Condit and Ross noted much of the island is covered by government granted concessions for mining different types of minerals.

Moving Precious Metals:

This section of precious metals was moved to the Post-Columbian History Section and deleted some information that was contradictory or unnecessary. Also made some grammatical edits.

Added - Precious metals played a large role in the history of the island after Columbus's arrival. One of the first inhabitants Columbus came across on this island was "a girl wearing only a gold nose plug." Columbus later learned that the "land of gold was farther east." Soon the Tainos were trading pieces of gold for hawk's bells with their cacique declaring the gold came from Cibao. Traveling further east from Navidad, Columbus came across the Yaque del Norte River, which he named Rio de Oro because its "sands abound in gold dust."

On Columbus's return during his second voyage he learned it was the cacique Caonabo, "lord of the mines", who had massacred his settlement at Navidad. While Columbus established a new settlement at

On 24 March 1495, Columbus with his ally

Miguel Diaz and

Ovando expropriated the gold mines of Miguel Diaz and Francisco de Garay in 1504, as pit mines became royal mines for Ferdinand, who reserved the best mines for himself, though placers were open to private prospectors. Furthermore, Ferdinand kept 967 natives in the San Cristobal mining area supervised by salaried miners.

Under

, and sphalerite. Below the supergene zone is found the unaltered massive sulphide mineralization.

Adding See Also Tabs

These additions were made at the top of almost every section to redirect users to more relevant Wikipedia pages that contain more information. Because this is just an overview page, many more facts can be found on other links.

This is a user sandbox of Literature8. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help