User talk:Mbridges177/sandbox
I would say The strongest part of the article is certainly the organization of the whole thing. The formula you guys are working with as well as the language used and overall neutral nature you are conveying works in line with Wikipedia standard. The sources at a glance seem pretty reliable if a little bare amount wise, but everything talked about in the article seems cited. You have a good length to it as well as categories, though I will say, and this is one of the biggest downfalls so far, the depth in some are very lacking. This is likely due to being a work in progress but personal life and others are extremely short. If you have trouble in the future figuring out more information on the artist I would say to remove it as a category and spread the information you do have around to other parts where they would fit. Another problem I would say is the length of the introductory statement. This is probably the only thing 90% of people read and should be treated as an opening line to summarize the most important and otherwise loose information about the artist. Whatever is needed to say, say it here.
Your article is on track and probably even ahead of schedule to being a great and fleshed out article, good luck going forward with this, Mferrell104 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review for Makoto Fujimura
edit1.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The personal section seemed a little irrelevant given the sparse amount of information. How does his father being a scientist relate to his work or aspirations as an artist? Do we have/ need information about his mother’s career? Feels biased/ sexist to only mention his father.
2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The first paragraph in the career section more specifically, “Fujimura hopes to be a catalyst for innovation in the future of seminary education, integrating the best of the arts into the church, seeing cities as classrooms for that integration, and helping the church to become the leading practitioner of culture care. Fujimura understands "culture care" as giving import to the creation and conservation of beauty as an antidote to cultural brokenness by asserting a need for cultural “generativity” in public life” I understand that you are outlining his motives/ goals, but it could be read as a little biased specifically the word “understands”. Possibly replace it with “defines” for a more neutral tone. Along the same lines as the above, also in the Career section the sentence “A popular speaker, he has lectured at The Aspen Institute…” consider removing the adjective “popular” as it is not necessary to get the point across; I get that he has given numerous lectures, however limiting the use of adjectives makes the source read as less biased.
3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The personal section could use more information, or be absolved all together. Maybe consider combining that into the Early Life section? Ex: “Born in 1960 to Osamu Fujimura (scientist), one of the pioneers of speech science…” I feel as though his Religious Beliefs are underrepresented here considering that is a big part of his inspiration/work. I gather that from the article overview- it mentions that he serves as Director of the Brehm Center which aims to “integrate Christianity and Art into an education…”. So he is a Christian, but no other information is provided.
4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
✔
5. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
✔
6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
Not out of date, but out of order. Consider rearranging the awards/ recognitions in the Recognition section as to create better chronological flow.