Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.
Option 1
- Article title
- Cartoon violence
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, though the history section is underdeveloped, and there are heavily opinionated areas.
- Is it written neutrally? Not to the same degree, there is a clear lean to one side of the argument.
- Does each claim have a citation? Nearly, though some are missing, including some significant sections which need citations, and baring the opinions.
- Are the citations reliable? link 21 is broken, everything else leads to legitimate sources, however, they are not evenly represented.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? It certainly covers the misrepresented subject of violence geared towards children and their reactions to those cartoons.
- Talk page: there are already discussions and changes made towards modifying the childish nature of the writing, the credibility of sources, and updating timeframes. It is a short page with minimal work though.
- Sources
Option 2
- Article title
- Gender inequality in Japan
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, with several subtopics that seem evenly represented.
- Is it written neutrally? Yes, it discusses many sides of inequality.
- Does each claim have a citation? no, there are several missing citations.
- Are the citations reliable? mostly, 1 and 2 have no external links, and the last few are from news articles or non-academic sources.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, even culturally, inequality tends to be shied away from in Japan, and this article covers many aspects of gender inequality.
- Talk page: aside from participations in courses, there are only two comments, one is reliant on information from a course not provided on the page or comment.
- Sources
Option 3
- Article title
- Domestic violence against men
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, though some of the statistics and subtopics are not well-developed or include sources from multiple places.
- Is it written neutrally? Sort of, but, as discussed in the Talk Page, it is under the process of becoming a POVFORK as it could either be better organized under another page, or just better organized in general, which I agree with.
- Does each claim have a citation? Nearly, this article is heavily cited, though there are still some claims (minimization and justification) that ought to have some. There also seems to be some "undue weight" to some claims.
- Are the citations reliable? There is a conflict in citation styles (in-text). Some citations are behind a paywall/subscription and not able to be checked. Some citations are also non-academic sources.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, domestic violence against men is often an underrepresented topic.
- Talk Page: good regular discussion and annotations of opinions, "undue weight," organization of the article, and perhaps it being a subtopic under another page.
- Sources
Option 4
- Article title
- Article Evaluation
- Sources
Option 5
- Article title
- Article Evaluation
- Sources
Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.
Option 1
- Article title
- Cartoon violence
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, though the history section is underdeveloped, and there are heavily opinionated areas.
- Is it written neutrally? Not to the same degree, there is a clear lean to one side of the argument.
- Does each claim have a citation? Nearly, though some are missing, including some significant sections which need citations, and baring the opinions.
- Are the citations reliable? link 21 is broken, everything else leads to legitimate sources, however, they are not evenly represented.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? It certainly covers the misrepresented subject of violence geared towards children and their reactions to those cartoons.
- Talk page: there are already discussions and changes made towards modifying the childish nature of the writing, the credibility of sources, and updating timeframes. It is a short page with minimal work though.
- Sources
Option 2
- Article title
- Gender inequality in Japan
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, with several subtopics that seem evenly represented.
- Is it written neutrally? Yes, it discusses many sides of inequality.
- Does each claim have a citation? no, there are several missing citations.
- Are the citations reliable? mostly, 1 and 2 have no external links, and the last few are from news articles or non-academic sources.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, even culturally, inequality tends to be shied away from in Japan, and this article covers many aspects of gender inequality.
- Talk page: aside from participations in courses, there are only two comments, one is reliant on information from a course not provided on the page or comment.
- Sources
Option 3
- Article title
- Domestic violence against men
- Article Evaluation
-
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, though some of the statistics and subtopics are not well-developed or include sources from multiple places.
- Is it written neutrally? Sort of, but, as discussed in the Talk Page, it is under the process of becoming a POVFORK as it could either be better organized under another page, or just better organized in general, which I agree with.
- Does each claim have a citation? Nearly, this article is heavily cited, though there are still some claims (minimization and justification) that ought to have some. There also seems to be some "undue weight" to some claims.
- Are the citations reliable? There is a conflict in citation styles (in-text). Some citations are behind a paywall/subscription and not able to be checked. Some citations are also non-academic sources.
- Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, domestic violence against men is often an underrepresented topic.
- Talk Page: good regular discussion and annotations of opinions, "undue weight," organization of the article, and perhaps it being a subtopic under another page.
- Sources
Option 4
- Article title
- Article Evaluation
- Sources
Option 5
- Article title
- Article Evaluation
- Sources