User:Ryanvee12/sandbox

Working bibliography for Detroit Black Food Security Network. (I am not able to add hanging indent in this).

White, M. M. (2011). Environmental Reviews & Case Studies: D-Town Farm:   African American Resistance to Food Insecurity and the Transformation of Detroit.   Environmental Practice, 13(4), 406-417. doi:10.1017/s1466046611000408

White, M. M. (2011). Sisters of the Soil: Urban Gardening as Resistance in Detroit. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 5(1), 13-28. doi:10.2979/racethmulglocon.5.1.13

Holt-Giménez, E., & Wang, Y. (2011). Reform or Transformation? The Pivotal Role of Food Justice in the U.S. Food Movement. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 5(1), 83-102. doi:10.2979/racethmulglocon.5.1.83

Morgan, K. (2014). Nourishing the city: The rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Studies,52(8), 1379-1394. doi:10.1177/0042098014534902

Thibert, J. (2012). Making Local Planning Work for Urban Agriculture in the North American Context. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(3), 349-357.doi:10.1177/0739456x11431692

Article evaluation (Ryan Lochte): -Everything is relevant about this article. Nothing distracted me from Lochte. It discusses his early life, olympic career, mishap in brazil, and his current life training for 2020 olympics. Everything was about Lochte, and nothing deviated from him.

-the article is neutral overall except for the description of the Lochte gate. The article seems to be bad mouthing him for what he did. With non of the positive things that he did (Like apologies, or new life changes).

-Mostly everything has a fair viewpoint. Many of the information in the article are facts. With the exception of the Lochte gate, everything was represented with bilateral views. It tended to be more negative toward the Lochte gate. It seems that It was written in more of a view of someone who was not fond of Lochte.

-All citations work. I checked all of them. A lot of them are news cites. So, they are all credible. Some cites were olympic and world championship results. After looking back at all the links, all of the citations accurately exemplify what is written in the article.

-All the information that is presented are facts. I fact checked everything. Everything comes from a reliable source. Examples are the olympics and world championship websites, swim swam, NYT, and ESPN all reputable sources. These are neutral sources. The only source that might be biased is MTV, but I checked and the information is true.

-All the information is correct and updated. All of his records that have been broken have been revised. The only thing that I would see as missing are his multiple new sponsorships that he partnered following the olympic incident.

-Most of the talk page is discussing what I have brought up about the Lochte gate. Before titling it lochte gate, it was gas station incident which is fabricating the significants of the incident. It down played the incident to a small incident that was actually a crime. Some have shared that the lochte gate portions has poor grammar and was poorly written.

-it is rated as a good article, meaning it has been worked on a lot and has all factual information. It is not a part of any wikiprojects.

Week 5 assignment: I will add an info box to the article. in the info box i will add is when the organization was founded, the founders, staff, and more notable work that they have completed. Also I will add on more to the body paragraphs since they are of short length. I will add more references.

A couple of these

references are: Farrell, C. (n.d.). Mission Statement. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://crpe-ej.org/en/

Wagner, B. L. (2016, April 28). Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment Reports on EPA Failures. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://earthjustice.org/blog/2016-april/center-on-race-poverty-and-the-environment-reports-on-epa-failures

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.