User talk:Willowwalsh
Willowwalsh, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Willowwalsh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
First Edit
Hey, Willow, got your email explaining your first attempt to edit. Again, I anticipate some kinks along the way. Your plan to redo the edit later tonight is a good one. Also: I'm responding to you here on your talk page to see how easy it is to communicate with other editors in this fashion. Could you let me know that you found this message? Try responding to me here or on my own talk page. Aschuet1 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Just seeing this! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Also, I think I was able to successfully redo my edit (I remembered to hit save this time). --Willowwalsh (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had hoped that you might get an email alerting you to my response, but it doesn't seem to work that way. I didn't get an alert that you had replied to me either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Rhetorical Analysis
Article: Carol (film)
Strengths: Structure is clear-many subheadings; good organization
Article is balanced- not one section seems to stand out; every heading seems to have even coverage
Coverage is neutral- Even though it received daunting snubs at the 2016 Oscars, and it's a film with two female, lesbian leads, the coverage seems to be unbiased and strictly informative.
Reliable sourcing- Each section appears to have multiple, reliable citations which total 181 sources.
Weaknesses: Lead section- The lead in is actually quite comprehensive; however, towards the last paragraph, it seems to go too in depth into material that is located further in the article, under various subheadings.
Hostile dialogue- The talk page is littered with hostile, abusive dialogue that scolds editors for going too in depth in certain details of their edits.
4.) Article creation date: 3 June 2013
In its earliest form, it was, merely, just the title. Then, the next edit from June 3rd, 2013 wasn't until March 5th, 2014. At that time, the article had the subheadings: cast, production, references, and external links. There was minimal information available which resulted in a skeleton of an article. After it was released and nominated for 6 Oscars, the information poured in and the number of subheadings grew along with the information they carried.
In the beginning, user "Captain Assassin!" added most of the content; however, in its current stage, most edits are made by user "Pyxis Solitary." This user is responsible for the hostile language, directed at others editors, on the talk page. Multiple editors expressed deep dissatisfaction with the dialogue the hostile editor was engaging in. One editor even went as far as to cite Wikipedia's civility guidelines.
The total time the "Carol (film)" article has been in edit is almost 4 years. The movie was released in November of 2015.
The article edits are, indeed, still active. The most recent edit was made on March 24th, 2017.
5.) The talk page was used quite actively. Its most recent addition was on March 11th, 2017. Most of the editors on the talk page were also on the history page. The editors were very adamant about their own edits, not forgetting to scrutinize other editors for their edits. The tone was harsh and unnecessary. The hostility didn't seem to add anything useful to the editorial effectiveness.
The main arguments in the talk page concerned: how in depth they should go into which scenes were cut and which roles were reduced, the external links, how they should make the plot summary more concise, and whether or not they should use the terminology "have sex" or "make love" when describing Carol and Therese's first encounter.
Edits: I was pretty apprehensive about making changes after I read through the awful talk page. I didn't dare hit "edit," but I made a suggestion on the talk page and decided to leave the pushy editors to have their own choice about it.
- This is a reasonable plan and definitely acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion was: the line "Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites Therese to lunch" seemed slightly inconclusive when I first read through it, so I suggested making the edit:
"Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites[her,] Therese[,] to lunch."
Brainstorming Topics:
Topics list:
1.) Nasty Women Project
2.) Rachel Maddow
3.) Lana Winters (Reoccurring American Horror Story Character)
4.) The Cranberries
5.) Emoluments Clause
6.) Khaled Hosseini
7.) Barbra Streisand
8.) Succulents
9.) Tillandsia (air plants)
10.) The First and Second Sound Shifts
11.) Photovoltaic Cells (Solar energy production)
12.) Affordable Care Act
13.) Kirsten Gillibrand
14.) Ellen Degeneres
15.) Christkindlmarket (Chicago)
Willowwalsh (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Brainstorming Checklist:
Status of the articles in correspondence with their numerical order:
1. Article is not yet created
2. Article is locked
3. Article is not yet created; notability may be a problem
4. Article exists; a bit longer than a stub
5. Article exists; any present-day connections wouldn't be neutral (until the clause is violated, and, then, it will be contextually useful)
6. Article exists; a bit longer than a stub
7. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive
8. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive
9. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive
10. Article for both shifts exists and are comprehensive
11. Article exists and is pretty comprehensive
12. This is a good article, and it's locked
13. This is a good article
14. Article is locked
15. Article exists, but it could use some tlc
Willowwalsh (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Topic for pitch:
The Nasty Women Project
The topic is quite notable due to recent events. The project is also linked with the efforts from the Women's March on Washington which is very notable, and the availability of Women's March sources would be helpful. It's relevant to today's political hostility, and this project could, potentially, mark the beginning of several resistance projects, some of which are already underway. The movement to which this project belongs may be the pop culture spark that ignites the political spectrum for years to come. Many media sources have covered the beginning of the "nasty women" movement, and these would make great sources for providing notability at the very least. If finding sources becomes a problem, it would be easy to look into the people who support the project and who have created it. The Nasty Women project is undoubtedly feminist, and feminism could be a potential avenue for other sources. The project's relevance to pop culture could also make way for several links: feminism, the Women's March, Hillary Clinton, Emily's List, etc. The inclusion of this project on Wikipedia would help the reader to fill out the post-election resistance narrative more completely. It will be hard to be strictly neutral and non-persuasive, but I think we can do it.
Preparing to Write an Article
I looked at the Wikipedia page for the 2017 Women’s march. I like that for that page, there are separate sections for the organizers and the origins. I also liked the portion of the article dedicated to the response from the movement. There were a lot of headings, and that was somewhat overwhelming, so for ours, I think we should try to organize things in a way that is not overwhelming. They had a ton of sources, the majority of which were newspaper articles, and I think that we probably will have the same kind of sources as well.
Based on my answers, here is an idea for the table of contents:
Overview (brief background and main ideas)
Background (founders (if any other than Trump muttering “nasty woman”) and reason for starting)
Beliefs (what Nasty Women fight for, and what their standard sets of beliefs are)
Support (who supports it, what celebrities have tweeted about it)
Influence (how has it been reported on and by who)
Reception by the public (who is seeing it and what are they saying about it)