User:Mtong14/sandbox

This is my sandbox.

Contributions to Plague Article

Article = Kongsi; Working draft = User:Mtong14/plague kongsi draft

The lead section of this article seems inappropriate. I think the article can be better organized by putting some of the information from the lead section into a separate section titled "History". Also, there is little mention of kongsi and its role in San Francisco, where it appeared to be an important part of society for Chinese immigrants during the late 1800s. Therefore, I intend to re-organize the article and create and expand on a "History" section, which will include information about the impact of kongsi in the development of the San Francisco Chinatown community. My preliminary sources are below:

There are also some viewpoints underrepresented as a result of the missing information concerning kongsi in San Francisco during the Plague years and some information without proper references. I will attempt to address these issues as I make edits to the article.

New Direction for edits

Instead of adding information, Rony and I will be removing info from the Kongsi article. Based on my research, kongsi does not appear to have much to do with San Francisco or America. It seems that information on Kongsi concerns mainly Southeast Asia. Therefore, we will be reorganizing and cleaning up the article to reflect this.

The draft can still be found at User:Mtong14/plague kongsi draft

Peer Review (AIDS Article)

Peer review article: Slava Mogutin for Ronyaguilar

Some guidelines:

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • The information seems relevant and adds to the history of Slava Mogutin.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The edits appear to be neutral. No heavy biases evident.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The edits are pretty neutral, so no over- or underrepresented viewpoints.
• Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The added citation for "Red Scare" doesn't appear to work. The one under "Interviews" does work, but is titled incorrect as "1".
  • Also the "Red Scare" reference looks to be duplicated (1 and 4 are the same).
• Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Possibly missing some references in the "Life in Russia" section regarding his partner Robert Filippini.
  • Reference in "Exile in New York" explaining that his "asylum to the US became the first to be granted based on homophobic prosecution" is missing.
  • Reference missing regarding his name change
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
  • Could add more under "Contemporary Exhibitions" if there were new exhibits since 2014.

For Rpatungan

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • The added information seems relevant, but the wording is a bit confusing - specifically "Lost Boys is credited to his return". I'm not exactly sure what the sentence means, but you might be able to reword it to make it easier to read.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The edits appear to be neutral, though it could possibly be seen as one-sided with the verbiage "Lost Boys is credited...". However, no heavy biases evident.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The edits are pretty neutral, so no over- or underrepresented viewpoints.
• Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The "Red Scare" reference looks to be duplicated (1 and 4 are the same).
• Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Additions are properly cited from "Red Scare".
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
  • Could add more under "Contemporary Exhibitions" if there were new exhibits since 2014, but otherwise, information seems to be up to date.

Contributions to AIDS Article

Article = Félix González-Torres

I plan to add to the influences of the artist's work. Specifically, I want to add more information on the influence of his partner, Ross Laycock. There is relatively little mention on Laycock's influence on Gonzalez-Torres's other works and I think this is an important addition to the artist's inspirations/motivations. This will go under the introductory text of the "Work" section. The following will be my references, also to be added to the article's talk page:

More references:

Wurst Master Thesis

Diamond Master Thesis

Article Evaluation

Ikiru wikipedia page eval notes:

Guiding Questions:

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • All sections are relevant and are of appropriate length. The main sections (Plot, Themes, and Reception) are informative, but still succinct.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article appears to be neutral, describing the film objectively. The "Reception" section only contains mostly positive viewpoints of the film, but may still depict an accurate picture of its reception.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Possibly in the "Reception" section, but its portrayal seems appropriate.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Yes, the citations that were checked appeared to support statements in the article.
• 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?
  • Most sources are from books or the film itself. Some of the "Reception" section references websites that are of personal opinion. This is somewhat expected though; these statements state the ranking/reviews of individuals or groups. Author has included an array of these rankings, which makes its inclusion more appropriate
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • The film is relatively old, so no new information. Only to add to "Legacy" section if anything recent was relevant to the film
• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Conversations mostly about references and public domain of the film
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • Rated as C-Class. Part of WikiProject Japan and Film
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • The article talks about the "living" aspect in the film, but no exactly in the manner that we talked about it in class