Sandbox Links

Comprehensive Assessment

Clueless:

The audience for the Clueless (film) page is likely readers who have watched or are planning to watch the movie. Notably, Clueless has a cult like following of watchers who have watched the movie many times. I know that I can almost quote the movie and that several girls in the class were excited to see this Wikipedia page on the list of articles to choose from. Therefore, I think the purpose of this Clueless article is to explain the plot and characters but also to give readers more information about the production process, awards, and the like. I feel like many readers to this Wikipedia page want to know more about the movie. This article has been given major tone revision already in the past, especially to the characters section. However, I still think that this process of tone revision needs to be continued by my work. The format is already in a good place for a film. I think that many editors will be interested in the accuracy of the content, since that seems to be another issue addressed on the talk page. In comparison to similar movie articles, this tone is entirely immature, unprofessional, and opinionated. Even though the film is a cute movie, the tone cannot change to fit the movie instead it must be standard like the other articles.

Firstly and most importantly, I think that I need to address the tone of the article. As mentioned, prior editors have already begun this process, but I think I need to continue it. I really want to explore how I can make this page grow, such as working on the legacy portion. I think that there is a lot of information and content that could be added by future editors. I can lay the groundwork for this. Beyond the sentence level, I think that the lead section could be altered because the novel “Emma” and the iconic “as if” quote could actually be placed into a different section. I also think that the “adaptations” section does not need to be broken into so many headings. I also think that creating a table for the soundtrack section could be a possibility. Lastly, I think that the “remake” section needs direction to grow. I am considering adding content myself or at least encouraging future editors to do so. I am worried that others editors may think that I am taking the fun and cuteness out of the movie. There perception could stem from the fact that the editors are likely young women who are on the page because they love the movie, not because they normally edit articles.

Major goals: tone is not encyclopedic, implement tables?, work on characters section, change intro paragraph

Public Speaking: The Public Speaking Wikipedia page likely has a very general audience. Likely readers are students, people wondering how to effectively public speak for a class, or other people wondering about the history of public speaking. The purpose of this article is to detail the history of public speaking. However, I feel that readers might be curious about more than just the history of public speaking. In fact, merging this article with other articles has been considered many times on the talk page. Therefore, I think that this page needs to have more links/redirects to those similar pages so that readers can be informed about more than just the history of public speaking. This article has undergone a lot of content updates. Furthermore, Wikipedia itself has flagged the “women in public speaking” section for being too opinionated. I feel that the academia such as professors and researchers are most interested in this article. Indeed, there are many experts and PhDs for the field of public speaking. I think that the article has an okay foundation. In order to grow as an article, I think that the technology section could be revamped. Since the history of public speaking is continually being made, I think that the technology section is the best place to address this issue. In comparison to similar articles, the Public Speaking page is not as professional in tone and it is not as long, considering that the subject has been studied for hundreds of years.

Wikipedia has this article flagged for its tone in the “women in public speaking” section. This is the first area I want to address. I need to take the opinions out of the section. I understand why women have their own section, but it makes me wonder if it is neutral and balanced to not have a section for men? I also want to work on the “history section” by possibly adding headings. Finally, I want to alter the “technology” section. I want the article to be able to grow in the future and by refiguring the technology section, I think this is possible. Although there are internal links listed on the page, I am hoping to somehow utilize these links in the paragraphs themselves. I also think that a graphic should be added to the technology section because the article is heavily obsessed with the history of public speaking. In fact, maybe this article name should be changed to “History of Public Speaking?” I am most worried about public speaking history experts challenging my edits. I am not as well versed on the topic as some editors are. Ultimately, my biggest challenge will be making the page a space where the article can grow in content.

Major goals: assess graphics, history could have subheadings?, women and public speaking is very opinionated, technology section is broad, there needs to be a direction for the growth of this wiki page, performing arts text box?

Bad Article Assignment

Ballet Article

This article is heavily focused on the history of ballet. Other topics such "health effects" and "ballet as a career" are drastically smaller in comparison.
The graphics seem very random
Bottom sections need expansion
The costume sections seems to be unnecessarily broken down by century
Random links in health effects
The talk page features numerous disagreements about terminology
Overall: this wiki page is too focused on the history of ballet at expense of exploring other information related to ballet

List of Pasta Article

The lead description is weak writing; it does not seem well-thought out
The amount of tables is overwhelming and hard to navigate, especially on mobile devices
There are random, unnecessary facts in the lead description
Needs a more professional, encyclopedic tone
A couple of the headings could be removed because they are not helpful (synonyms and place or origin)
Many boxes are left blank

User:Candles and candy

Sandbox Links

Comprehensive Assessment

Bad Article Assignment

Top Choice Articles