User talk:Wyattjenkerson/sandbox

Article Evaluation

The article that I am evaluating is the 1942-44 musicians' strike. All of the information on the article was relevant, nothing that went off-topic. The article only had text and nothing was distracting while reading. I feel like the article could use more background information and images should be added to go with the names and organizations being discussed. The article was very neutral in the information and words used. Although I thought that the consequences section could have been making connections that were not already present in another source. The citations on the article are functioning and cite different websites, books, and writings that are of the time of the strike. The information is relevant and used properly and the sources are unbiased, supporting the writing with facts. The conversations that are taking place are fairly straight forward, with discussions about information or links and citations being added. The article has a c-class rating and is a part of WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject United States / American Music, and WikiProject Record Labels.

Article Selection

Latte art

Relevant information, more history can be added though. https://www.baristainstitute.com/inspiration/history-and-basics-latte-art

Cold Brew Coffee

This brewing method is only a part of a list of different coffee drinks, but I feel more can be said about the brewing methods and the growing popularity.

SoundCloud (music platform)

There is good background information about the app, and the article provides a history to the changes and progression of the platform. I feel that the app has a strong cultural influence on the music industry today so I would want to add a cultural impact and importance of the website. Soundcloud has changed how music is consumed and how music sales look like now. They were one of the streaming pioneers, but have face criticism for the outcome of their platform. Articles talk about the over saturation of music and how it impacts artists and the ways they are to gain income from their art. Another thing that I saw that was not mentioned is how artists are able to now monetize their work, through ads on the platform. Also the overall impact that the changes have on the artists or the users. Soundcloud was able to change the way that artists were able to enter the music industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/magazine/if-soundcloud-disappears-what-happens-to-its-music-culture.html http://www.thebundlemagazine.com/2019/02/is-soundcloud-ruining-the-music-industry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattjenkerson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Article evaluation feedback

What a fascinating topic to evaluate! I don't know that I ever would have found that page or known this strike existed if you hadn't pointed me to it here. You do a nice job in this evaluation discussing what the article is already doing well and what could still be done to make it even better. Bringing this quality of observation forward into the articles you're considering improving will hopefully help guide you to some focused approaches to improving those. Nicoleccc (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback

Latte art: This seems like a good candidate to me. Yes, the history can be expanded, and there might also be opportunity to update some of the information (have techniques/methods changed at all, are there significant competitions for this art form, that kind of thing). The biggest question might be whether you can find a good range of sources to help you improve this article.

Cold brew coffee: This one is a little trickier, as it's technically just one component in a "list" page, and already one of the meatier components of that page. If you choose this article, it might be worth considering a couple of the list sections for expansion/clean-up rather than just this one.

SoundCloud: This is a much more developed article than the others you're considering, and cultural impact can be a very challenging conversation to have without introducing bias. That said. you have a clear specific idea of what to contribute here and I agree that it's content that is not currently represented in the article. If you can find enough sources having this conversation to build that article section from, this could be worth reaching for.

I think any of these can work, although latte art and soundcloud (even given the caveat above) strike me as probably the best options of the three. Were you able to more readily find sources for one or the other? That might be a good determining factor. Nicoleccc (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback

You've added a number of strong expansions to the existing article in this draft! Your work in the lead section and the addition of a cultural impact discussion are highlights of these additions. As you continue to work on and polish this, some things to keep in mind would be:

• I see good sources usage through most of your additions. As with other sections of the article, though, the lead section does need citations where appropriate (a couple examples of this would be the statement about how/when Soundcloud started and its number of monthly users).
• The conversation about Soundcloud rap as a distinct sub-genre of rap is really interesting, but does need clearer definition and support. Are you able to find credible sources discussing it as its own specific sub-genre and defining what distinguishes that sound from other genres of rap? This would go a long way toward strengthening that section.
• Organization-wise, I'm curious where you plan to incorporate the new "Cultural Impacts" section. Either after "Reception" or after "Blocking" are the first candidates that stand out to me, but there are likely good arguments for other placement as well
• This may be outside the scope of the edits you're working on, but it's a bit jarring/surprising to me to see the long list of criticism in the "Reception" section with only the one example of recognition. It seems like there would be other ways in which it's been recognized, although that's just an assumption I'm making without having done the research...if you have encountered information about other recognition in the research you've done, that might be an easy and meaningful addition to include.
• A careful proofread before integrating this article with the existing one would be a good idea (one example of a spot that could use a second look is: "...makes the platform feel more like a social media rather than a streaming service." The phrasing of "a social media" would read more smoothly and be more grammatically accurate if the article ("a") was removed or a noun like "platform" or "site" was added at the end of the phrase for clarification.

Let me know if you have any questions as you're finishing these edits, and I look forward to reading your polished draft! Nicoleccc (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SoundCloud Review

Your rough draft is laid out really nice. The introduction is clear and unbiased. I noticed that there isn't any sources in the intro, however the other sections are sourced well from credible websites. The tone is neutral, although I noticed in the history section there is more unbalanced information. There is a grammar fragment such as in the music industry section, the sentence says "The way that users are able to comment, like, and share songs and artists makes the platform feel more like a social media rather than a streaming service.[10]" Other than a few things, it's a really solid foundation for a rough draft, nice work.

SoundCloud Peer Review

After reading the article itself, then reading over the edits you want to make, I was honestly blown away. Your rough draft is very well done! You were able to keep a neutral tone through out your edits and you made really good contributions! The lead section edit that you made greatly improved the article. Although in the lead section I didn't see you cite anything, which I would maybe recommend doing. The overall format of the article was also very well done. The flow of information and the information given was unbiased and well put. You have a great source of references and a lot of them. After reading through it I did feel like I learned quite a bit more about SoundCloud than I knew before. HShoey (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Hshoey

Peer Review Alex Atwood7 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Alex Atwood

Your article is laid out very well, organized, and easy to read. One thing I would suggest is to beef up the history paragraph. Soundcloud is very well known, so I would imagine the history to be pretty substantial. Other than that, keep up the good work!