Laurenehowell3

Evaluating a Wikipedia Article

Article: São Paulo

Evaluating Content

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

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, however there was so much information that was chronologically misplaced, so I was distracted. For example, I would have liked to know general information (geography, demographics) before the entire history of the city. I also think that placing the culture section more towards the top would have given the reader a more holistic picture when learning about the city. Although there was a lot of information, it was relevant and holistically informative.

• Is any information out of date?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

I honestly cannot think of any sections that could be added. No information is out of date because it speaks generally about the city and leaves out specific details. For example, in the government section, it is mentioned that there is a mayor. However, the current mayor is not listed. It would be more informative to add those specific details.

• What else could be improved?

I felt as if some sections could have had topic sentences that were more formal summing up their subsections. For example, it would've been helpful if the economy section had a topic sentence about the other sections in that subtitle.

Evaluating Tone

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is somewhat neutral. It is not outwardly biased towards a particular opinion. However, I feel that when talking about the history, it was Eurocentric. Language such as "The region was divided in Caciquedoms (chiefdoms) at the time of encounter with the Europeans," shows some sort of bias. It neglects the harm done to the nation by Europeans. The same is the case when speaking about the history of independence. Much is not mentioned about the role of the city in Brazil's fight to be independent with Portugal.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I do not believe that there are viewpoints that are overrepresented. I think that certain sections are discussed in more detail than others, however I do not think that is a reflection of viewpoint or bias.

Evaluating Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links are working and the sources seem to support the claims 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?

The page is very long, so I am not sure how each fact is referenced. There are some facts that lack references which is concerning because they are statistics about demographics and population. There are bold facts that are stated without evidence such as mention of the city being the most populated in the Southern Hemisphere. The sources that are used do seem to be reliable, however some of them are not neutral. For example, one of the sources is titled “We are repulsed by this government”: Brazil’s wealthy are fleeing the country" which is obviously an opinion piece.

Checking the Talk Page

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There seems to be a lot of conversations going on about how Eurocentric the piece is. For example, people are upset by the translations of Portuguese words and also by the whitening of history in the article (the language used to describe miscegenation). The importance of LGBTQIA+ history in the city was also deleted which is a concern. Other concerns are logistical such as questions about sources or grammar.

• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is a B-class article, but a level three vital article in Geography. It is a part of WikiProject Brazil/Geography, WikiProject Cities, and Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We have not talked about the topic in class.