User talk:Nelliebonham

30 March 2017

I am choosing to write my Rhetorical Analysis on the Thru-Hiking page. 1 Click on “View history” for your article. When was the article started? How did the article look in its early stages? How/when was material added? By whom? How long did it take to get to its current stage? How recently have edits been made? Is it still active?

This article was started in December 2005. In its initial stage, this article had two sentences, and basically only defined what a thru hiker is. From what I have learned, the writer who started this page (Signingseth59) did not edit it in the future. In its initial stages, a writer name Bikeable was popular, as well as Antandrus. Bikeable began to make considerable changes to the article and expanded the content to cover more than a mere definition. The edit from 7 September 2006 really contributed to how the page exists today. These edits were made from the IP address 4.240.245.206. This edit is the first time distinct headings come up in the wiki page. There is an introduction, thru-hiking today, thru-hiking in popular culture, and a see also in this version of the wiki page. On the 19 November 2008 version, there is no longer a “Thru-hiking in popular culture” section. On the 4 September 2009 page, the section on “Popular Culture” was deleted. The notes state that this was an unnecessary section. So, the 4 September 2009 page is the one that is most similar to the wiki page as it exists today, particularly because that is when the sections that are present today were created. Between 2009 and 2017, the only major changes were the input of Further Readings. The latest edit to this page was the 23 March 2017.

2 Click on the “Talk” tab for your article. How actively did the editors use it? For what reason? How would you describe the tone of the conversation? Do you see the same editors here that you saw on the history page? On the talk page, it says that this article was created for a specific project on Wikipedia, “WikiProject Backpacking.” This project is currently inactive. There are three sections on the Talk page. One section is informal and just states the equivalent term to thru-hiking in Australia. The second section just shows a link to why an article was deleted. The third section is about the meaning of the term “thru-hiking.” This section is very accusatory, because Chisme is disagreeing with the definition of thru-hiking as it appears on Wikipedia. Yet, Sparkgap comments back in a mild tone stating what they believe Chisme means by the “hiking with minimal or lightweight equiptment” definition that she offers. I did not see these two authors referenced on the history page.

3 Copy edit the article in some way: think about ways to improve the language, such as fixing grammatical mistakes. Then, make the appropriate changes. You don’t need to contribute new information to the article.

Edited minor grammatical and syntactical structures 4 Post your list of strengths/weaknesses, answers to questions #4 and #5, and the description of your edits to your User account talk page. Strengths- The lead section is very informative and straight forward. The citations are also relevant and reliable. The initial part of the page also presents section hiking which is the opposite side of thru-hiking. Showing that relationship really helps illustrate the meaning of thru-hiking in my opinion. Weaknesses- While the present references are reliable, I feel like there should be more citations present throughout the article. There is also a warning tab that says that this article does not represent the worldview on this particular topic. I find this to be problematic, but it could be solved by creating a more specific page. For example, something like: Thru-hiking in the United States or Thru-Hiking in Europe.

In terms of my edits, I mostly edited the large section on the history of thru-hiking. There were many sentences that were very long, and while they were properly punctuated, that did not make them easier to read. I tried to condense the various sentences and make the article flow better.

ee cummings review

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? There seems to be a great variation of citations throughout this wikipedia page. Not every fact is cited, but there seems to be at least one citation per paragraph, so seemingly, all of the bases are covered. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I think that everything present in the article seemed relevant. There were many sections that contained a large amount of information, and it seemed overwhelming, but the information was always relevant. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Aside from the section that compares his work to Stein’s, this article is relatively neutral. I think the part about Stein is not necessarily neutral, because there is not a citation that supports those claims. Where does the information come from? Are there enough and a variety of sources? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? A lot of the information comes from various biographies. These biographies seem to mostly be associated with various colleges. The citations about his poetry mostly come from the poetry foundation. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? His typography is mentioned multiple times throughout the page. I think that this is slightly overrepresented, but I do recognize why this is mentioned so many times throughout the article. I think that the ways in which it it brought up proves to be confusing for the readers. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? There is usually a citation after every large paragraphs. Citation 11, 35 does not work. I do not see any places where there is plagiarism, but there is a section where a citation is needed. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? To my knowledge, nothing is out of date besides the two citations that do not work. Nelliebonham (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Nellie

4/5: Brainstorming

1. Alex and Ani jewelry
2. Ecofeminist Literary Theory
3. Brittany Smith, USA shotputter
4. Gary Oldfield, track coach
5. Al Carius, Track Coach
6. Project V.O.I.C.E.
7. Kevin Burke, poet
8. Good Ghost Bill, poet
9. Horizon League
10. Iroquois County Fair
11. Zulily
12. Burt Shavitz
13. Literacy with an Attitude
14. Empowering Education
15. The Head and The Heart

I think that the book, Literacy with an Attitude belongs on Wikipedia, because it offers an in depth look into some of the problems with literacy in secondary classrooms. This book has significant research done on it, and I think I would be able to find my information through researching scholarly articles on the book. It was published in 1999, so I believe there will be people writing about it. In this article, I could link to the various types of education (middle class, urban, etc.) that are present in the novel. Different resources about education and other books about literacy could potentially open up new doors for me as I research. I could also tie in ideas about literacy within the novel. Jean Anyon is also a potential source, because she did a lot of work within these realms of education. NOTE: The bolded terms have wiki pages --Nelliebonham (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Nellie

Kaitlyn's Preparing to Create

A topic that I found that is similar to ours in many ways is The Oxford Textbook of Medicine. Like ours, this book is written as a guide for people already in the field, but is often used in college classrooms as a textbook of sorts. Like ours, it provides scholarly information based upon scientific study. The editors did a good job making it clear exactly what the book was and was used for in the lead. I would like to do something similar. Additionally, since their text is somewhat of a reference text, it is nice to get a list of the chapters so that one can understand the scope of the book. Since ours is not in the form of a reference material, but rather something that is meant to be read cover to cover, I would suggest we come up with a different format but still make sure to share all of the big ideas.

The organization is “Description, Online Access, Editorial Team, Contents, references, and external links.” It basically states why the book is important first and then goes down to who wrote it and what it contains. I think an inverted pyramid structure, in which the most important information is first is very appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

With the exception of one other source, the article cited only the primary text. I think our book is commonly known enough in the field that we may be able to find reviews and even peer reviewed work in conversation with it. I would like to include a little more in depth report of what our text says, and also any criticism done on it by scholars. I would also like to talk about the studies the authors of the reference or create in the book. Potential Categories:

Description: provides a clear one or two sentence summary, does not use our own personal research or summarization but one we found.

Authors: provides author credentials, does not create bias or advertisement

Research: Includes research done for the book, includes research on which the book was based

Impact: explain what new perspective it has provided (maybe combine this with the scholarship category), without bias explain whether that impact has changed education

Scholarship: academic papers referencing it to support own argument, academic papers argument against it if there are any out there.

References: many outside sources, unbiased sources Kematt1203 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for being rad. Fescandon (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Literacy with an Attitude Group Project

I’d like to imitate the way the page layout and how the synopsis was generally neutral. Particularly, I like that other educational book page linked to reviews and similar books. Most books under Wiki’s “educational books” landing page do not have much more than a paragraph summary and basic information such as the IBSN, publishing company, and author name. However, the books that are more popular (but older) include a one to two paragraph intro, synopsis, reception, legacy and awards (sometimes), and references. Most “good” pages also include concepts, theories, summary, influences, and such. Sources come from the website of the book, any other books the author has written, journals on the book, and lectures. I don’t know what else I would include that wouldn’t verge on possibly becoming non-neutral.

Table of Contents:

Synopsis -brief yet covers chapters in sections -links readers to other pages through hyperlinks of big ideas

Reception -cite important and reputable places that comment on work -gives positive and negative receptive views

Awards -highlights large awards, if any -does not boast or skew from article purpose

References -list of sources used in the order used -no explanation, might deter from bibliography

See: Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Democracy and Education, Pedagogy of the Oppressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fescandon (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Starting Our Page

I will begin by discussing the strengths and weaknesses I found on the page: Outliers (book).

Some things I really liked about this page and would like to imitate include the background information on the author. Malcolm Gladwell wrote The Outliers and he has more prominence than Patrick J. Finn, but authorship is important nonetheless. In this article, it is evident that the editors thought outside of the box in order to find other existing connections on wikipedia. I think that finding these connections will be vital in making a successful wikipedia page. One critique I have of this page is that the synopsis portion is very long. I think that the synopsis could be broken down into smaller sections to depict a more in depth look at what is present within the text. The citations in this article in this article are mostly from biographies and other newspaper/journal articles with reviews about the book. I think that something that is missing from this article is how the ideas in the text work today. With Literacy with an Attitude I think it would be necessary to talk about how the ideas work today.

Some things to include in our page would be the background of the book. So this would have information on the author as well as the publishing company. I would also include a Synopsis Section. I think that different headings for the sections of the book would be important. I also think that a part on reception would be important. Reception should include real life examples of the things that Finn discusses and how this text works in the world. Critiques and praises should also be present in this section.

Nelliebonham (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Nelliebonham

Ari's Preparation For Article Creation

I chose to look at the book Half the Sky Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. This book is also nonfiction, and is similarly laid out to Literacy with and Attitude in that there are different real life examples, and these examples are recurring throughout the novel. This article is divided into three main sections: Overview, Media, and Activism and Supporting Organization. The Overview section is further divided by topics the book investigates. I think that this set up could be useful for Literacy with an Attitude, because it examines different types of education and critiques them.

Unfortunately, this article has a lot of problems. The sources are mainly by the authors, although there is plenty of other information out there. The critic section only addresses one review, when in fact many also saw this book as conflicting, both helpful and problematic. Making sure we find outside sources that Finn has no connection to is important to establish notability, and this article does not follow this example. This article is a good example of a start, but does not follow through to be the best example. Aribug (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Jackson's Preparing to Create

Just as it was mentioned earlier, I think looking at pages such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a good starting point. It is helpful at giving a brief explanation and linking to major ideas that come from the book, such as critical consciousness. I think that page also does a great job of staying neutral when discussing the revolutionary ideas of the text. I think that these ideas would be good to emulate. The only thing about this example that we should try to avoid is having unbalanced sections. On that page, there is a large body of work under the Summary sections, but then almost nothing under every other section. JSpanbur (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes from Professor Bull

Primary Sources: poetry/ performance; play/performance; book Secondary Sources: magazines, newspapers, scholarly articles, valid websites, audio/visual from reputable things

• look for things ENTIRELY about the merit

Dismiss Reference Resources: wiki is a reference resource unmask: take an anonymous source to reveal identity Reference resources are abstracts for everything that came before it (which is why we don't cite them) Website about the music band is a primary source so cant use it but finding review is a lil more decent Where do we start?

Well Bull went to summon

RESEARCH IS NOT LINEAR

Beeline I love bees

Categories: Overview [author & subjects] [Felicia], Synopsis [Ari], Research in the novel [Kaitlyn], Critical Reception [Nellie & Jackson]

Nelliebonham (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Nellie

Kaitlyn's sources for studies refered to by the book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Inequalities http://www.jeananyon.org/docs/anyon-1980.pdf Swift, W. David (1971). Ideology and change in the public schools: Latent functions of progressive education. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ogbu “Cultural Diversity and School Experience.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Willis Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. http://academic.son.wisc.edu/courses/n701/week/Schatzman_SocialClass.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee “Orality and Literacy” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”

Hi all, I have chosen a few several articles on which Finn bases his research and provided the links to places the text is discussed already on Wikipedia, or in some cases, where the full text can be accessed. As we discussed, I left them in hyperlink form as they will speak to Finn's credibility but not to notability, as they were all necessarily published before he wrote his book. The one that I could not find access to I left a citation for. I hope this is acceptable. I know the instructions suggest MLA format, but I chose APA as that is the format typically used for education material. I would be happy to convert it if that is preferable. As I complied this information, I was wondering if we should actually consider working into perhaps the summary section. It does not have any credibility on it's own, and if we are going to explain how any of the research is used we will need secondary sources which will likely be in the summary section. Have a good weekend!Kematt1203 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm (Ari) just going to put my sources in the same section here so we have them. This first one is a review in the education journal, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. It reviews the book, but gives a really good summary on it to that we can use in the synopsis.

Whiting, Erin Feinauer. "Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 54, no. 8, May 2011, pp. 638-640. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.valpo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=60759842&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

This is a journal article from an anthropology journal that does the same thing.

Watkins, John M. Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Interest. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 31, 3, 2000. Retrieved from http://cae.americananthro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Finn_Patrick-Literacy_with_an_Attitude.pdf

Thanks! Aribug (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)