User talk:SabrinaRoseLee/sandbox

Week 1

Week 1:

- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference

→Each fact is referenced by reliable and well-known sources. At face value this page is deeply rooted in scholarly articles and an international knowledge base.

- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

→Because of the global perspective of “community development” provided by the page there are links to various dominant, core countries that is not directly relevant to the subject matter of community development.

- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

→The article is biased towards global community development rather than looking into grass root and community based organizing. There was a bias towards legitimate “community development” that is based in neoliberal institutions such as the World Bank and notions of the global North and South.

- Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

→Much of the official information comes from the United Nations, which creates a heavy bias towards global organizing and work. Although the sources come from a variety of places from local to global, and provides critique to the notions presented on the page, these references were not as heavily used within the actual page.

- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

→The viewpoints provided are highly overrepresented, this page was reliant on neoliberal ideology that created a focus on dominant nation states within the “global North."

- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

→Some of the citations do not work. There is closing paraphrasing in a couple of instances, but it is nothing too serious.

- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

→The references are up to date, and most of the ones provided are within the past decade. This makes the information relevant, but when it comes to community development, it is in constant evolution so the page may need more sources from this past year.

- Check the "talk" page of the article - what is the Wikipedia community saying about how to present this topic? How is the article rated in terms of Wikipedia's quality scale?

→The Wiki community shows a high-importance in terms of this page, and there does not seem to be too much critique of the overall page. However, there is acknowledgment of the critiques that I had provided, as well as, addition to various sections and checks on plagiarism within the article. SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Week 2

Empowerment Evaluation Page

- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

→Yes, most of the information and facts are followed by and referred to by relevant sources. The facts are not directly referenced, but the information corresponds to the sources cited.

- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

→Everything was extremely organized on this particular page separating the topic from theory, to tangible practice, to praxis where the two intersect. It also did a good job to provide critiques of the theory.

- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

→The article is biased towards the positive outcomes of empowerment evaluations. There is rebuttals to critiques and note of the positive results of the evaluations, instead of acknowledging to critiques and providing examples of consequences.

- Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

→The information primarily comes from publications and theoretical frameworks. The list of sources is extensive and is much longer than the community development page.

- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

→The page is heavily reliant on the original text and theory where the term empowerment evaluation was coined. This was not as biased as the community development page in terms of political framework. Mostly, because it is difficult to compare community development to an aspect of it. However, I would like to state again that the page is very positive in talking about empowerment evaluations.

- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

→Most of the citations work. Most of them are comprised of book reviews to the original text or use of the theory in tangible and historical practices. There are mostly generalized ideas presented and so paraphrasing is difficult to avoid, but for the mot part the page does a good job at synthesizing the ideas that are provided.

- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

→The information ranges from the late 1900s to the 2000s, and so I think the sources are still relevant. Because the text is so crucial for the aspect of empowerment evaluations, the page provides old and contemporary analysis of the topic.

- Check the "talk" page of the article - what is the Wikipedia community saying about how to present this topic? How is the article rated in terms of Wikipedia's quality scale?

→This page has not received a rating for quality or importance. There are also limited critiques and edits. This page is also different from community development because there is actual dialogue provided between the writer and other members of the wiki community.

- What sections in this article are different than in the Community Development article? What new information or different information is presented in the two?

→Majority of the sections differ from the community development article. The empowerment evaluation page talks a lot more about the tangible practices of the theory, and splits the sections by the actual process of the evaluation. This is different from the community development page, which relies heavily on the UN definition and the parties involved, rather than the actual practice of community development. SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC) SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC) SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Week 3

Things to add:

→Addition of wildlife GIS Applications

—Suitability analysis for enhancing wildlife habitat in the Yolo Basin Jones & Stokes Associates.; Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture.; California Wetlands Foundation.1994

→“Possibility space” — a framework that allows for the analysis of all possible consequences and benefits of a suitability analysis

—Wutthigrai Boonsuk ; Chris Harding; Possibility space for GIS suitability analysis. Proc. SPIE 9017, Visualization and Data Analysis 2014, 90170R (December 23, 2013); doi:10.1117/12.2040165. SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Week 4

→Citations:

Ascough, J. C., Rector, H. D., Hoag, D. L., McMaster, G. S., Vandenberg, B. C., Shaffer, M. J., Weltz, M. A., and Ahuja, L. R., “Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems: Overview, Applications, and Future Research Directions,” Proc. Integrated Assessment and Decision Support, 175 (2002).

Jankowski, Piotr, and L. Richard. "Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21.3 (1994): 323-340.

Malczewski, Jacek. "GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview." Progress in planning 62.1 (2004): 3-65. Suitability analysis for enhancing wildlife habitat in the Yolo Basin Jones & Stokes Associates.; Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture.; California Wetlands Foundation.1994

Wutthigrai Boonsuk ; Chris Harding; Possibility space for GIS suitability analysis. Proc. SPIE 9017, Visualization and Data Analysis 2014, 90170R (December 23, 2013); doi:10.1117/12.2040165.

→Rough Draft

—Section— Possibility Space

The Possibility Space is a framework that allows for the analysis of all possible consequences and benefits of a suitability analysis. This is created through geometrical data analysis conducted in real time with technological land mapping, allowing for the development of multiple combinations of suitability. Physically it is a visual interactive database that allows for a holistic composition of suitability.

—Land-Use Suitability Analysis

Land-use suitability analysis requires the use of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) in order to survey geographical suitability. This process can be viewed through the techno-positivist and the socio-political, public engagement perspectives. There has been critique in the role that both of these aspects of careful spatial planning entail. The instrumental approach to spatial analysis can either be seen as a tool, or as a the main plan when it comes to suitability. This brings up the theoretical questions of space, place, and the social construction of both. Needless to say, both the social and the physical aspects of space are necessary to conduct a holistic suitability analysis.

—Addition of “Wildlife” to GIS Applications—

The identification of physical structuresnatural habitats, and the relationship between the two and the environmental impacts of that. This allows for the optimization between the relationship of enhancing wildlife while also allowing for man made development. SabrinaRoseLee (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)