Talk:Stranger Than Fanfiction

Untitled section

Sahil's evaluation: Great work on starting a brand new wikipedia page. Other than citations, there are a few minor edits that I'm sure will be fixed with revisions. For example, "Sam is a closeted transgender character who is very artistic and creative (Hypable). Sam is also transgender, and his mother is a beauty queen (Hypable)". Also, an analysis section is meant for discussions by scholars and how it affected literature, so I think that section would be more apt as a character or themes section. The characters list also seems a little repetitive after the plot summary which has small introductions when each new character is mentioned.

Hrithik's Eval: Excellent work on taking on the initiative of creating a brand new Wiki Page for your novel of interest. I agree with what Sahil had already mentioned above. Further detail could also be implemented within the plot summary section as I do feel that the Analysis section is currently "overpowering" the bulk of the wiki page due to the amount of detail and length of the section. While I do understand that it must have been quite difficult to find scholarship on the subject of your wiki page, potentially one or two pieces of academic literature would be beneficial in supplementing the reception section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrithik.saride (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

a) Feedback I received: fixing citations, fixing sentence structure, re-working the subsections, adding more to the plot summary and scholarly reception sections b) I’ll definitely try and rework some of the subsections and clean up the wording & citations. However, there is very little more that I can add to the summary and scholarly reception sections because there is simply not enough research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smajmundar (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are definitely content gaps, especially in the "Summary" section. I also acknowledge that some of the sources I've cited are not wholly reliable. I encourage any Wikipedia users who would like to edit this page to work on these specific issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smajmundar (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation of Wikipedia article on "Native American Day"

• Evaluating content
  • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
    • Within the South Dakota section, there is a mention of MLK's birthday which I do not find relevant to the article.
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps.
    • The information is outdated, as it refers to events occurring in the 1960s/80s/90s and 2017. However, given that the liberal spirit has dominated the news and politics particularly over the past few years, I'm sure there is a lot more new information about this topic.
  • What else could be improved?
    • Lack of information
      • What has been the Native communities' responses to this effort? What have some prominent figures said about these decisions to designate a "Native American Day" (include some quotes)? Why is this celebration important? Elaborate on the overarching goals. I'm sure these decisions have been met with controversy--what is the opposing POV?
  • Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information and summarizes the entire article?
    • Generally speaking, yes...but if more information is added to this. article, the lead section will have to be edited/lengthened.
• Evaluating tone
  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • It neutral, but almost too neutral...there should be some mention of the controversy surrounding this day and how those in defense of the holiday have responded.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • few viewpoints are adequately discussed
• Evaluating sources
  • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
    • most (if not all) are Wikipedia links...it would be nice if the author included information from outside Wikipedia (ie databases, books, news)
    • The citations are simply facts and do not provide useful information
      • Example: "U.S. states...California...Nevada"...each of these words are linked to wikipedia pages that describe what they are...instead, the author should have included one link that discusses these states' histories with Native American Day
  • 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? For example, does the writer use signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information?
    • Most of the linked phrases are facts, but some of the facts aren't cited correctly
      • (The link to George S. Mickelson does not include the quoted phrase "Year of Reconciliation" so I do not know where that phrase came from)
    • There are no signal phrases because the information is common sense (ie we all know what the U.S. states are)
• Checking the talk page
  • Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.
    • Very little talk...only grammatical reworking
  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • None
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • WikiProject California, WikiProject Holidays, WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America
    • Rating: Stub-Class
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • We've focused less on facts and more on the significance of the day
    • We've discussed perspectives more, including those of the Native Americans themselves

Evaluation of "A Handmaid's Tale" Wikipedia Article

• Lead
  • In general, it gives an adequate introduction to the novel. However, there is some information that I would expand on (ie What does the Canterbury Tales have to do with the Title? What does that have to do with the novel?) Maybe this detail should be more fleshed out, but in an Analysis section, not in the Lead section.
  • There is some awkward wording: "The Handmaid's Tale explores themes of women in subjugation in a patriarchal society..."
  • The Lead doesn't mention many of the themes that are later discussed in the article.
  • In general, I feel like the Lead focuses too much on details which do not pertain to an overall summary of the book (ie the awards it has won and the structure of the book...these aspects should be analyzed in a subsequent section).
  • Much of this information should go in a "Background" section
• Characters
  • There are in-depth descriptions of several characters that I don't fine necessary. Most people who look at Wikipedia are looking for a brief summary- trying the get the gist of the book. The length of this article makes it very daunting, and I. think a lot of the content that should be cut out should come from the characters section.
• "Setting"
  • Themes should be a part of a separate section, they should not be listed under "Setting"
  • In general, there's a LOT of information here and it's very overwhelming...I don't think "Legitimate Women" is necessary to include because it's a very specific detail not pertinent to a brief summary
    • same applies to "Econowives", "Unwomen", "Jezebels", Eyes...etc
  • I find the subsections which divide men from women from babies awkward and unnecessary
  • Language section...again, unnecessary (relatively insignificant detail)
• Genre Classification
  • This information can be greatly condensed; genres are not meant to be complicated. It's a categorical measure
• Critical Reception
  • Feminist Reading belongs as its own separate category
    • Can add Rule here
    • Lauren Rule, in "Not Fading into Another Landscape: Specters of American Empire in Margaret Atwood's Fiction", discusses an interview during which Atwood described Gilead as "a society in which you have a sort of 'farming' of women" in which "Offred's experiences under Gilead's reproductive system bear uncomfrotable resemblances to. those of slave women on US plantations" (632, 647).
  • Same with Race
    • Here is a good place to add in Merriman's critique

Fun Home Wikipedia

• Lead
  • briefly touches upon each of the sections later discussed in greater detail, the reforming providing a useful overview (ie themes, critical reception...etc)
  • I personally feel as though some of the information is unnecessary, especially given that Wikipedia is meant to be a very brief overview (ie that it took 7 years to write)
  • includes many cited sources, which adds credibility
  • The part about the musical can be cut down, and a separate page should be made for it
• Summary
  • My first impression is that this section is long...which defeats Wikipedia’s purpose
  • Incorporates quotes from the book, again adding credibility
  • In general, I think that the theme subsection should be longer than the summary section, so I’d add more there (ie the theme of abuse)
  • I like that the author took time to briefly explain the allusions since literary references are abundant throughout the novel
• Artwork
  • I think this section can be greatly reduced. If I were looking for a brief overview of the book, I wouldn’t care to know about the actual process of creating the images.
• Publication and Reception
  • I find some of the information unnecessary (ie the mention of “Persepolis”)
  • This section in particular highlights the outdated nature of this article...a lot of the challenges mentioned are from 2006/2007/2013/2015, but as we saw in class, the book is still being challenged in 2019
• Musical Adaptation
  • This information is not pertinent enough to be an entirely separate section. Instead, there should be a different page for it.

Wikipedia, Phase One Activity

• General Observation: The "Fun Home" article includes information that is not directly pertinent to the novel itself.
• Concrete point of evaluation: The author includes a lengthy section dedicated to the musical adaptation of "Fun Home". Although this musical is based on the novel, it is only loosely related to the actual book, as it is an entirely distinct project. Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly warn against including information which is not entirely relevant to the subjects of their articles.
• Actionable item: Delete this section and include a brief reference to the musical in the lead section, as well as a link to the existing Wikipedia page for the musical adaptation.