User:Baileybane/sandbox

Review of Trail of Broken Treaties

Evaluating content

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The article is relevant to the topic. It presents a brief outline of the historical series of events and provides the motivation behind the the protests.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content gaps. I think there are quite a few content gaps, the largest being the effects/outcome of the protests. The article states, "In these talks the federal government made concessions to the protesters, including further treaty negotiations," failing to extrapolate on what these further treaty negotiations consisted of. Along the same vein, the legacy of the event is not explored. Beyond the legal and social changes the event prompted, did the events provoke hope among the Native American population or encourage further demonstrations in the fight for justice? I also think more detail on motivations for the protests is needed. "Treaty rights, living standards, and inadequate housing" is a little vague. What are some specific treaty violations or examples of rejections of human rights for Native Americans? I believe this would strengthen readers' understanding for the cause of the event. Furthermore, who is the voice behind this movement? Native American youths? Political leaders?

What else could be improved? There is a lot of repetition that can be written in a more concise and effective manor. For example, " Designed to bring national attention to American Indian issues, such as treaty rights, living standards, and inadequate housing, it brought to the national capital the largest gathering ever of American Indians presenting their hopes," can be rewritten as: The protest motivated the largest historical gathering of Native Americans seeking to bring national attention to injustices such as violations of treaty agreements and inadequate living standards.

Evaluating tone

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral and does not contain explicit bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of the Nixon Administration is underrepresented. The article only states that the administration rejected protestors' wishes to meet. I feel the complexity of the event has been oversimplified in this statement.

Evaluating sources

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Only one of four citations is available for the reader to explore. Of the other three, one does not have a link. While the link works on the other two, both sources are unavailable once the link is clicked on. It appears to be an issue with ABC-CLIO and YouTube, respectively.

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? No. Each fact is certainly not referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference or any reference at all. In the reference section, there is an article written by Vine Deloria Jr., a Native American historian and author, listed. It is not clear whether the unreferenced facts (the majority of the article) is information taken from Deloria's piece or not.

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations going on behind the scenes. This leads me to believe this page is the product of one author which may explain some of the citation issues. This could also explain some underrepresented viewpoints as the author is not familiar with any other than that of the Native Americans.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated Stub-class. It is a part of the following WikiProjects: Indigenous peoples of North America, Politics, Human rights

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, we've focused a lot on the youth and their roles in what is deemed appropriate literature and even their role in enacting social change. Wikipedia takes more of a broad perspective, speaking of the Native American population as a whole rather than focusing on a particular population. I feel a little more specificity, particularly in this article, would be very helpful for the reader to identify the voice behind the movement, who is participating, and their motivations. As is, it is a little vague and leaves me with many questions. We've emphasize exigence in class, and this article does not explore the exigence of the protestors; identifying exigence grants insight into the incentive and inspiration of the participants this article needs.

Evaluation of "The Handmaid's Tale" Article

Overall, I feel that the article includes all the information suggested by Wikipedia, albeit not in the structure in which they publish. Some information should be moved and renamed to increase clarity, particularly for unfamiliar audiences.

Lead

The lead successfully introduces some background information and the social injustices the novel presents. However, a theme is introduced which is confusing to unfamiliar audiences and rather insignificant relative to other discussions the book prompts. I think the introduction about "night and other parts" should be omitted, possibly to be expanded on below. I feel mentioning the novel as a double narrative, with Offred's experience alternating between past and present as a representation of the perspective of all Handmaids, is sufficient for the lead section.

Background

This section does not exist. Although I feel it is not necessary, it may be a helpful addition to bring attention to the novel's complex and disussion-provoking elements. Much of this information is already present throughout the article and can be moved to fulfill this section. This should be brief, however, because interpretation should be in the Analysis section, not in the Background section. However, because Atwood is such a renowned author with a significant influence on the literary world, a background section is certainly an addition to consider.

Summary

This is quite lengthy and should be combined with the description fo characters. The character section should be shorted and more concise and weaved into the summary section. The summary itself is overly-detailed and does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to provide short overviews; for details synopsis, other sources exist.

Genre

I think the addition of interviews and essays by Atwood and other professionals in the field is effective in defining Atwood's specific genre intentions in the novel. However, the historical context subsection become very lengthy and rather analytical for this section. It should be moved and shortened, specifically sections from Atwood's interviews that are included. I feel much of this should not only moved, but also deleted. I feel it is rather inclusive for an overview article for the whole novel. This seems to be a deeper dive into specific subsections of the novel that can be explored.

Comparison of Fun Home v. The Handmaid's Tail

Fun Home: Rated FA-class

The Handmaid's Tail: Rated C-class

Length-wise, the Fun Home article is much more concise than The Handmaid's Tale article. Upon immediate reflection, this suggests that the Fun Home article has been more thoroughly filtered for significant information. The Handmaid's Tail includes much information that may not be particularly relevant or significant to be included in a Wikipedia article (whose purpose is to provide an overview). Some of the information in the The Handmaid's Tail may be more applicable on another platform that more thoroughly explores specific themes and patterns. Here is a more detailed analysis of the structure and content within each section of the articles:

Fun Home lead: Omit much of the information about the musical adaptation. This belongs on the Wikipedia page dedicated to the musical itself. I think it is sufficient to mention the adaptation of the musical and its success in brevity.

Fun Home plot and thematic summary: Move the themes and allusions subsections. This is more analytical.

Three-Part Evaluation

General observation: The article on The Handmaid's Tale does not follow the structure Wikipedia suggests for book articles.

Concrete point of evaluation: The article does not follow the structure Wikipedia suggests for book articles; it is disorganized and mislabeled. The Setting section is particularly problematic. Setting is the location of primary analysis, which is divided into thematic subsections. The labels within these subsections should be condensed. Furthermore, Subsection 3.5, Legitimate Women, under the label Wives: "Wives always wear blue dresses and cloaks, suggesting traditional depictions of the Virgin Mary in historic Christian art." This is unreferenced, supporting the Wikipedia banner at the top which identifies the lack of inline citations and unclear, imprecise sourcing. Wikipedia directs editors to reference every analytical sentence.

Actionable item: Rename section to Analysis. Condense scattered analysis into this section. Find a source that discusses the allusion to the Virgin Mary in historic Christian art to substantiate this claim. If no source is identified, add "citation needed." This is just one example of uncited analysis; it occurs consistently throughout the article.

Draft One of contributions to Wikipedia article on William's Doll

Existing information italicized, my additions in bold and underlined.

LEAD

Every article starts with a lead section, which provides basic information about the book and summarizes the entire article.

BACKGROUND - new section as recommended by Wikipedia, skeleton moved down from lead section

Information and context about how the book came to be. When was it written? Where does it stand in the author’s body of work? Was she responding to a particular event or experience? The background doesn’t include criticism, interpretation, or any details that sources haven’t directly tied to the writing of the book. Independent sources are typically preferred, but author interviews can be useful for this section.

Published in 1972, William's Doll extends Zolotow's legacy of recognizing and legitimatizing the emotional capacity of small children. Rejecting condescension based on age, Zolotow appeals to genuineness by thoughtfully introducing themes such as death and anger, and in William's Doll, non-traditional gender stereotypes, to young audiences (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll).

Zolotow has explained that although she is a feminist and appreciates that many feminists enjoyed support of the book's message, her inspiration was more derives from personal observations about her husband's early attempts to bond with the couple's son, Stephen (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, Johnson). She cites a specific experience that later became the basis of the book (Johnson). As a result of her husband's refusal to fulfill their son's request for a stuffed animal lion due to his association of between stuffed animals and femininity, Zolotow later purchased the item for Stephen behind her husband's back (Johnson). Observing similar interactions between fathers and sons at local parks, Zolotow found inspiration in how men of the time period missed out on some of the pleasures of being closely involved with their children's development (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, making picture books). She observed, for example, that by always exiting the room during diaper changes, her husband missed their son's first smile (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll making picture books).

SUMMARY - new section as recommended by Wikipedia, skeleton moved down from lead section

A concise summary of the book’s content. For a non-fiction book this might also include the overall organization. For a novel, the summary will probably be a plot synopsis. Don’t add interpretations, analyses, or judgments to this section — just a straightforward summary. Don’t write for dramatic effect; err on the side of dry description and don’t try to avoid spoilers. Some basic elements of the synopsis can be sourced directly from the book itself if not properly summarized in the secondary sources.

William's Doll is a 1972 children's picture book by Charlotte Zolotow about a boy who wants a doll even though dolls are socially designated as being only acceptable for girls. William's Doll follows the story of William, a young boy who wishes for a doll to care for. His father, uncomfortable with William's request, tries giving William toys that he considers to be more gender-appropriate, such as a basketball and a train set. While William still enjoys these toys, practicing his basketball skills and playing with his train set for hours and hours. However, he persists with his request for a doll, enduring taunting by his brother and other boys in the neighborhood. When William's grandmother comes to visit, William shows her the toys his father bought him, but mentions his continuing desire for a doll to care for. Finally, William's grandmother fulfills William's request, upsetting William's father. William's grandmother explains to William's father that the doll will allow for William to practice good parenting and grow into a great father just like him.

ANALYSIS - new section as recommended by Wikipedia

What was the impact of the book’s ideas? Was the book subject to scholarly analysis? Did reviewers extract key points and arguments? Did critics evaluate or build upon the ideas?

Impact of the book's ideas in the classroom: To address gender micro-inequalities, to promote acceptance, and assist in bilingual contexts

The impact of William's Doll, a representation of non-traditional gender stereotypes in children, is significant in the classroom as a tool to address gender micro-inequalities, sex stereotyping, intolerance, and learning challenges faced by non-English speaking students (Marshall, Wellhousen Tunks, Silva). The effects of sexism are residual, especially in the classroom, the center of childhood socialization (Marshall, Goldstein-Schultz). Sex stereotyping by educators is reinforced by inequity of time, encouragement, difficultly of assignments, and expectation of success offered between male and female students (Marshall, Goldstein-Schultz). To counterbalance inherent inequity in the classroom, William's Doll is employed as a method through which educators may expose students to the concept of sex-stereotyping. Introducing relatable characters who are not stereotypically gender-conforming such as William allows for a source of new role models (Marshall). This method has been employed by many marginalized populations to increase representation in children's literature; however, representations of males such as William with traditionally female characteristics has not been as easily welcomed (Wellhousen Tunks, Silva).

RECEPTION - new section as recommended by Wikipedia

What did reviewers think about it? Try to provide a balanced picture of the book’s reception. Include major awards or distinctions it received. Paraphrasing is preferred, but you can use short quotes if critics’ words are particularly informative or interesting.

Waiting on ILL to provide more perspectives -- very little information about reception available on databases about literature written 50+ years ago.

Bibliography of sources for editing William's Doll article

Charlotte Zolotow – The Official Charlotte Zolotow Website. http://charlottezolotow.com/. Accessed 26 Nov. 2019.

Goldstein-Schultz, Martha. "The Living Gender Curriculum: Helping FCS Students Analyze Gender Stereotypes." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, vol. 108, no. 3, 2016, pp. 56-62. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/1815971560?accountid=11091, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14307/JFCS108.3.56

Greever, Ellen A., Patricia Austin, and Karyn Welhousen. "William's Doll Revisited."Language Arts, vol. 77, no. 4, 2000, pp. 324-330. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/196874046?accountid=11091.

Hansen, Cory C., and Debby Zambo. "Boys in the Club: Exploring Positive Male Archetypes with Preschool Males." Literacy Research and Instruction, vol. 49, no. 1, 2010, pp. 40-55. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/205371709?accountid=11091.

Johnson, Nancy J., and Cyndi Giorgis. "Talking with Charlotte Zolotow." Book Links, vol. 15, no. 6, 07, 2006, pp. 30. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/197210015?accountid=11091.

Karyn, Wellhousen T., and Jessica McGee. "Embracing William, Oliver Button, and Tough Boris: Learning Acceptance from Characters in Children's Literature."Childhood Education, vol. 82, no. 4, 2006, pp. 213-218. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/210389626?accountid=11091.

Marshall, Carol S., and Judy Reinhartz. "Gender Issues in the Classroom." The Clearing House, vol. 70, no. 6, 1997, pp. 333-337. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/196868730?accountid=11091.

Silva, Cecilia, and Stephen B. Kucer. "Expanding Curricular Conversations through Unification, Diversity, and Access." Language Arts, vol. 74, no. 1, 1997, pp. 26-32. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/196878718?accountid=11091..

Wollman-Bonilla, Julie. "Outrageous Viewpoints: Teachers' Criteria for Rejecting Works of Childrens' Literature." Language Arts, vol. 75, no. 4, 1998, pp. 287-295. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/196857007?accountid=11091.

Zolotow, Charlotte, and William Pène du Bois. William’s Doll. Harper & Row, 1972.

Zolotow, Charlotte. "Making Picture Books: The Words." The Horn Book Magazine, vol. 74, no. 2, 1998, pp. 185-189. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/199349189?accountid=11091.

Final Draft

LEAD

William's Doll is a 1972 children's picture book by Charlotte Zolotow, one of the first children's texts to address nontraditional gender stereotypes. about a boy who wants a doll even though dolls are socially designated as being only acceptable for girls. The story follows William, a young boy who wishes for a doll to care for. William's father is unhappy with his request, instead giving William toys that he considers to be more gender appropriate, such as a basketball and a train set. While William still enjoys these toys, he persists with his request for a doll. Finally, William's grandmother fulfills William's request, explaining to William's father that the doll will allow for his child William to practice good parenting.

Zolotow cites personal observations about the relationship between her husband and son as inspiration for the book (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, Johnson). She believes that denying young boys access to certain toys and absences of early interaction between father and child are destructive to expression and relationship formation (making picture books).

Zolotow has explained that although she is a feminist and appreciates that many feminists enjoyed the book's message, her inspiration was more from personal observations about her husband's early attempts to bond with the couple's son, Stephen, and about how men of the time period missed out on some of the pleasures of being closely involved with their children's development. She observed, for example, that by always exiting the room during diaper changes, her husband missed their son's first smile. (moved to background).

The book often is used in the United States classroom for lessons on gender roles, intolerance, or general and anti-bias education (Marshall, Wellhousen Tunks, Silva). For example, the journal article "'William's Doll' Revisited" was on a study comparing reactions of fourth-grade students in 1975 and in 2000. To counterbalance inherent micro-inequalities in the classroom, William's Doll is employed as a method through which educators expose students to the concept of sex-stereotyping (Marshall). While exposure through children's literature has been employed by many marginalized populations, representations of males such as William with traditionally female characteristics have not been as easily welcomed (Wellhousen Tunks, Silva). Many educators, for example, object to texts representing gender-role reversal, referencing their own parenting techniques as reasons to reject the use of William's Doll in the classroom (Wollman-Bonilla). Other scholars, recognizing the critical role schools play in childhood identity and sexuality development, suggest family and consumer science classrooms as environments to promote discussions concerning sex stereotypes (Goldstein-Schultz).

A song based on the story was included in the 1972 best-selling Free to Be... You and Me children's album and songbook. In 1981, William's Doll also became a 14-minute film starring Craig Salles.

BACKGROUND

Published in 1972, William's Doll extends Zolotow's legacy of recognizing and legitimatizing the emotional capacity of small children (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll). Rejecting condescension based on age, Zolotow appeals to genuineness by introducing themes such as death and anger, and in William's Doll, non-traditional gender stereotypes, to young audiences (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll).

Zolotow has explained that although she is a feminist and appreciates that many feminists enjoyed support of the book's message, her inspiration was more derives from personal observations about her husband's early attempts to bond with the couple's son, Stephen (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, Johnson). She cites a specific experience that later became the basis of the book (Johnson). As a result of her husband's refusal to fulfill their son's request for a stuffed animal lion due to his association of between stuffed animals and femininity, Zolotow later purchased the item for Stephen behind her husband's back (Johnson). Zolotow argues that denying young boys access to certain toys rejects fullfillment of genuine human instinct (making picture books). Observing similar interactions between fathers and sons at local parks, Zolotow found inspiration in how men of the time period missed out on some of the pleasures of being closely involved with their children's early development (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, making picture books). She observed, for example, that by always exiting the room during diaper changes, her husband missed their son's first smile (Charlotte Zolotow on the origins of William's Doll, making picture books). Such absences of early interaction between father and child, Zolotow believes, result in a breach in the foundation of the relationship (making picture books).

SUMMARY

William's Doll is a 1972 children's picture book by Charlotte Zolotow about a boy who wants a doll even though dolls are socially designated as being only acceptable for girls. William's Doll follows the story of William, a young boy who wishes for a doll to care for. His father, uncomfortable with William's request, tries giving William toys that he considers to be more gender-appropriate, such as a basketball and a train set. While William still enjoys these toys, practicing his basketball skills and playing with his train set for hours and hours. However, he persists with his request for a doll, enduring taunting by his brother and other boys in the neighborhood. When William's grandmother comes to visit, William shows her the toys his father bought him, but mentions his continuing desire for a doll to care for. Finally, William's grandmother fulfills William's request, upsetting William's father. William's grandmother explains to William's father that the doll will allow for William to practice good parenting and grow into a great father just like him.

ANALYSIS

Numerous scholars analyze the use of William's Doll in the classroom. The impact of the book, a representation of non-traditional gender stereotypes in children, is significant in the classroom as a tool to address gender micro-inequalities, intolerance, and learning challenges faced by non-English speaking students (Marshall, Wellhousen Tunks, Silva). The effects of sexism are residual, especially in the classroom, the center of childhood socialization (Marshall, Goldstein-Schultz). Sex stereotyping by educators is reinforced by inequity of time, encouragement, difficultly of assignments, and expectation of success offered between male and female students, labeled "hidden curriculum" (Marshall, Goldstein-Schultz). To counterbalance inherent inequity in the classroom, William's Doll is employed as a method through which educators may expose students to the concept of sex-stereotyping (Marshall). Introducing relatable characters who are not stereotypically gender-conforming such as William allows for a source of new role models (Marshall).

This method of exposure through children's literature has been employed by many marginalized populations; however, representations of males such as William who are portrayed as having traditionally female characteristics have not been as easily welcomed (Wellhousen Tunks, Silva). For example, to promote women's involvement in traditionally male-dominated careers, sports, and other interests, the Women's Movement witnessed a serge of empowering female characters in children's literature (Silva). However, persisting lack of non-traditional male characters such as William is proposed to be a reflection of unchanging male stereotypes despite evolving popular opinion regarding gender roles (Silva). Dr. Cecilia Silva, a professor at Texas Christian University, claims society is oblivious to this "boy code," only prominent when characters such as William contravene (Silva). For many male nonconforming individuals, however, the result of conforming with the "code" is self-esteem and emotional growth obstacles (Wellhousen Tunks).

Implementing William's Doll in the classroom is frequently proposed as a tool to assist children in identifying sex stereotyping, so it has become the focus of many classroom studies (Marshall). Martha Goldstein-Schultz, a professor at the University of Connecticut, suggests family and consumer science classrooms as environments to promote discussions concerning sex stereotypes (Goldstein-Schultz). She emphasizes the critical role schools play in childhood identity and sexuality development as platforms to encourage questions and acceptance through exposure to literature such as William's Doll (Goldstein-Schultz). A study investigating student responses to a classroom read-aloud of William's Doll to a sample of young boys found that including literature with non-gender-conforming males elicits increased identification of textual interrelation (Hansen).

RECEPTION

Considering the role of William's Doll in the classroom, scholars focus on teachers' reception of the book as they choose class readings. Julie Wollman-Bonilla, a graduate of Harvard University's Institute for Educational Management, identifies elementary teachers' lack of selection of nonmainstream titles such as William's Doll (Wollman-Bonilla). She argues that every children's text presents a set of morals and endorses a specific code of conduct (Wollman-Bonilla). Texts displaying white, middle-class American values are the prevailing choice among elementary school educators, neglecting books representing the perspective of marginalized populations on the basis of sex, race, or socioeconomic factors (Wollman-Bonilla).

In Wollman-Bonilla's sample of teachers' reception, she found that most educators objected to texts representing gender-role reversal (Wollman-Bonilla). In response to William's Doll, many teachers referenced their own parenting techniques as reasons to reject its use in the classroom (Wollman-Bonilla). For example, many educators' responses aligned with this male teacher's assertion about the text: "I would never let my son play with a doll!" (Wollman-Bonilla). In general, male educators were more adverse to the use of William's Doll in their classrooms than female educators, although the dominant opinion across both genders was negative (Wollman-Bonilla). Wollman-Bonilla identifies that opposition to William's Doll was mostly by gender-conforming individuals who endorse gender roles as a natural order (Wollman-Bonilla). Books such as William's Doll, however, suggest that sex stereotyping is an intrinsic societal issue that needs to be addressed (Wollman-Bonilla).

ADAPTATIONS

A song based on the story, with music by Mary Rodgers and lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, was included in the best-selling Free to Be... You and Me children's album and songbook in 1972, where it was sung by Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas (citation needed). This same The song was later sung by B. D. Wong at the Ms. Foundation's 15th Annual Gloria Awards ceremony in 2003, where Marlo Thomas and former Ms. Foundation president Letty Cottin Pogrebin received the Creative Philanthropy Award for the album's creation.

When Free to Be... You and Me became a television special in 1974, ABC asked producer Marlo Thomas to make two changes to the material, one of which involved the Zolotow story: to omit William's Doll for fear it would promote homosexuality. Thomas rejected the omission.

“	They wanted William's Doll cut, because it would turn every boy in the world into a homosexual — which isn't such a bad idea. And the other issue was "Parents Are People." Harry Belafonte sang the man part and I sang the female part, and we were walking down Fifth Avenue pushing baby buggies and ABC said it wouldn't play in the South. It looked like we were married. ... Thankfully, 'That Girl' was a hit on ABC at the time, so I had a little clout. Both things stayed in.	”

William's Doll also became a 14-minute film in 1981. The 1981 film starred Craig Salles as William and was shot in Graceada Park in Modesto, California. In 2010, the producers of RiffTrax, formerly Mystery Science Theater 3000, released William's Doll. This was their "riff" of the aforementioned short.