User:Dcc376/sandbox

Critical Reception edits

"King Corn" showed at several film festivals and ultimately aired on PBS's Independent Lens series. By presenting their film on public television, Cheney and Ellis hoped to drastically increase viewership. When Cheney and Ellis returned to Greene, Iowa, the film received a great reception. The film inspired many locals to take action. On a wider scale, the film has received numerous positive reviews from The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many other prominent media outlets. The film, which has been deemed “a deceptively intelligent new entry in the regular-Joe documentary genre” by The Salon, was praised for its subtle criticism of the over production and industrialization of corn in America. Although the film is critical of certain aspects of the production of corn in Iowa, such as high fructose corn syrup, it still demonstrates a profound respect for those peoples who live and work in America’s Corn Belt. According to the Boston Globe, the film distinguishes itself from other documentaries for its informal eloquence and “unusual amount of warmth.” Even though the co-producers of the film offer a somewhat comedic and informal narrative throughout the movie, most reviews insist that Cheney and Ellis are still able to convey their critical message. The Washington Post said that the documentary ought to be a “required viewing by anyone planning to visit a supermarket, fast-food joint, of their own refrigerator.” According to Rotten Tomatoes, 78% of audience members liked the film while 96% of critics rated it "fresh."

Production (new section)

Cheney and Ellis were inspired to create the film out of embarrassment—they were college graduates with no knowledge of where their food came from or how it was made. For Woolf, the film presented a new opportunity, one where he could "get [his] hands dirty." One of the biggest challenges the trio faced was raising money for the independent film. They found that people were largely bored with the concept of the film and did not understand their intent. Another obstacle was the stop-animations, which were very time-consuming. A particular issue for Woolf during filming was the shyness of his co-stars, both of whom did not want to be on camera for the first six months of filming.

In retrospect, the trio would have liked to include footage about the environmental consequences of industrial farming. They recall watching as the fertilizer and chemicals they used seeped into the stream neighboring their acre. Climate change is an accompanying issue they regret they were unable to discuss as well.

Lead Edits

King Corn is a documentary film released in October 2007 that follows college friends Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis (directed by Aaron Woolf) as they move from Boston to Greene, Iowa to grow and farm an acre of corn. Coincidentally, the trip also takes them back to where both of their families have roots. In the process, Cheney and Ellis examine the trend of increased corn production and its effects on American society, highlighting the role of government subsidies in encouraging the huge amount of corn grown. Furthermore, by studying the food economy through the history of corn in America, the two realize most foods contain corn in some form.

The film shows how industrialization in corn has all but eliminated the image of the family farm, which is being replaced by larger industrial farms. Cheney and Ellis suggest that this trend reflects a larger industrialization of the North American food system. As outlined in the film, decisions relating to which crops are grown and how they are grown are based on government manipulated economic considerations rather than their true economic, environmental, or social ramifications. This is demonstrated in the film by the production of high fructose corn syrup, an ingredient found in many cheap food products, including fast food. A study done at Princeton University found that the same amount of high fructose corn syrup consumed caused more of a weight gain in rats than regular table sugar. In fact, Cheney and Ellis realize that this production is what makes their generation the first with a diminished life expectancy compared to their predecessors. They identify that there is a correlation between the increasing obesity rate and the increasing production of corn syrup. With the new advancement and demand for corn, the traditional farming industry is being replaced by larger corporate farms. By creating the film, the two college friends hope to increase awareness about the consequences of excessive corn production.

Potential Edits to "King Corn"

I want to add a "behind the scenes" section to the article, giving readers an insight into how the film was made, including how the filmmakers' changed their eating habits after making the film.

I will add citations to the introductory paragraphs of the article, namely where a prior user references a Princeton University study but doesn't cite the study. Also, I think the introduction is a little heavy, and delves too far into the plot in non-chronological order. Perhaps I could make another section called "Plot" and discuss the ramifications of the film, and what it says about the food industry.

Potential Topics for Week 3

Slow Food

King Corn (film)

Holodomor

"Critique an Article - Food Politics - Holodomor"

At first glance, this looks like a solid, well-written piece. There are no warning banners present, contains a clear, easy to understand lead section, and appears to take a neutral stance. Of course, this does not mean that there is no room for improvement, or that there are no disagreements about the themes and topics of the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes, each fact appears to be properly cited.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? No, each section is necessary to explain what Holodomor is, as well as the ongoing debate surrounding what caused it. The section entitled "Holodomor Memorials" seemed a little repetitive since there are article sections that discuss how certain countries remember/honor the event.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I think this article is neutral. It does a good job on shedding light on the arguments for/against calling Holodomor a genocide.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? There are hundreds of sources at work in this article. Most are neutral and include peer-reviewed academic papers, political speeches and statements, and different newspaper articles and editorials. There is bias in certain sources - such as statements for the Soviet Union, but their side of the argument must also be present in the article.

On the talk page, a user recommends a changing of the title from "Holodomor" to "Ukranian Genocide of 1932-1933." The user argues the latter is more commonly used. From my research, I found there is evidence to support both titles. Within the body of the article itself, the authors recognize this ongoing debate. However, the word Holodomor literally means "death by hunger" in Ukranian, which is a near-perfect definition of what occurred during the Holodomor/Ukranian Genocide of 1932-1933. Additionally, as others on the talk page point out, several nation states debate to what extent this event was a genocide by the term's normal definition.

The second and final question on the talk page disputes whether or not a source was misused or used out of context. After examining the article the user mentions, I agree that further clarification is needed.