User:Blogger192AC/sandbox

Group Work

Group Members: Blogger192AC, Calstudent123, and Melinda.an

Group Sandbox: Blogger192AC

Group Topic: Women's Rights

We looked at 3 different articles: The first one was "Women's Rights In Iran" however this page already had a lot of information and our group was not able to add any further valid information to it.

The second article our group looked over was the "Gender Pay Gap" Wikipedia page.

The third page, which we decided on using for this assignment, was the "Body Positive Movement." When looking over this site we decided to add a paragraph under the "In the Media" section. We are going to update this article

Article Evaluation

(For this assignment I evaluated the Wikipedia page on Tania Bruguera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Bruguera)

Observations

1) The overall structure is not as organized as it could be. While all content categories are portrayed in bold and written in the same font size, the content category “Activism” is the only one which does not match this formatting. On the original Tania Bruguera Wikipedia site this category is shown as a subcategory under “Work.” Since activism plays a very large and important role in Tania Bruguera’s work this category is strong enough to stand by itself. Therefore this category should also be depicted in bold lettering and in the same font size as the other content categories.

Another structural change could be implemented under the “Biography” category. Here it is unclear whether the “Controversy” paragraph is supposed to be a separate category since it is written in bold. The font size is smaller than that of the “Activism” subcategory, so it is unclear what its exact purpose is. On top of this, the word choice of this heading implies bias. The suggestion here would be to tie this part of information into the paragraph above in a neutral way and maybe even offer a non-controversial viewpoint on this piece of information. The content should be portrayed as neutral as possible.

2) The writing style is very choppy; there is no flow especially in the first paragraph when introducing Tania Bruguera. It does not allow an enjoyable read.

3) Under the “Biography” category the last entry listing Tania Bruguera’s work and projects is a project back in 2013. An update as to what Tania Bruguera has been up to in the past 4 years would be relevant at this point.

4) Under the “Work” category there is no introduction or information as to why these specific pieces of Tania Bruguera’s work were chosen to be written about. This brings up the question if the pieces of work mentioned on this Wikipedia site were randomly chosen to write about or if they are part of her most influential work? This could definitely be stated more clearly in the paragraph.

5) Last but not least, the “Exhibitions” and “Awards” categories do not have any citations. This brings up questions such as is this information true and if so where was it retrieved from?

Learnings

1) A well formulated sentence structure as well as a topic structure are important in order for the text to be understandable, as well as supplying the reader with an enjoyable read.

2) The outline should represent a clear and correct picture of the main categories (and subcategories if relevant). This is an important factor because it provides the potential reader with a brief overview of the contents and helps simplify the act of looking for specific information. If the table of content is incorrect or unstructured the reader may not want to read this particular Wikipedia page. Clarity and consistency are key!

3)The links, tried out, are valid.

4) The article is of interest to a few WikiProjects and was rated as 'Start class' by the WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Cuba, WikiProject Visual Arts, and WikiProject artist.