User:Espereira/sandbox

Wikipedia Evaluation

'Botany'

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?  There are good references with properly cited, adequate sources. Some facts do not seem to be cited, though. Not sure if the proper procedure is to add one citation if all of the information above is from that source, or not. The only case I would see this is in the introduction, where there are a couple of paragraphs before a citation for source 6 is noted. If that is not so, then some facts are not properly cited. The references seem reliable though. 
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?  Everything in this article was quite relevant, and thoroughly outlined Botany and the different aspects and areas of plant study. Every subsection related back to botany, and nothing really distracted from the overall topic. 
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  This article is factual, and remains neutral. There are no other positions taken, or bias presented. 
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?  The information seems to come from reliable academic sources, such as encyclopedias, journals, and peer-reviewed articles. 
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  No, the information was equally distributed. 
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?  The links do work. There does not seem to be any apparent paraphrasing and/or plagiarism. 
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?  There doesn’t seem to be any missing information. For the most part, everything seems up to date, except for a few sources on processes that could probably be checked for any updates. 
• Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?  How does the topic differ from the way we've discussed these issues in class?   For the most part, the discussion is related to sources that could be added, external links that were modified, and some areas that should be covered.

'Cyanobacteria'

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?  For the most part, facts are cited. There are a lot cases though where there are labeled citations saying ‘citation needed’, calling for a reliable source to defend the claim. Also, there are two sections that do not cite any sources. 
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article appears relevant to the topic of Cyanobacteria. 
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  The sources seem to be neutral, and mainly just relaying related information about Cyanobacteria. There does not appear to be a bias towards a certain position.  
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?  The information comes from educational sources, such as peer-reviewed journals, science magazines, and other college informational sites.  
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  There are a few sections at the end (Chemical control, Dietary supplementation, Relationship to chloroplasts) that could use a little more information, but the other sections seem all equally represented. 
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?  The links all seem to work. There seems to be good relaying of information in a way that does not plagiarize or paraphrase. 
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There could be some more information added to the sections: Chemical control, Dietary supplementation, and Relationship to chloroplasts). Most information seems up to date, but there is a source from 1964 that may want to be revisited. Also, the introduction needs to be reworked to model the content of the article. 
• Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?  How does the topic differ from the way we've discussed these issues in class?   The discussion mainly revolves around minor details that are either being added or changed. There are also some questions about grammar, and comments about the order of certain parts. Also, some comments ask for people to add information if they have more details about certain aspects.

'Pinophyta'

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?   Most facts are, but there are some that require citation, and some that do not even have a ‘citation needed’ marker. 
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?  All of the information seems relevant to the article topic. With more information added to some sections, the sections would seem much more relevant.  
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  The article seem neutral, and no heavy biases towards a certain position seem apparent.  
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?  The information comes from mainly peer-reviewed articles, journals, and other educational text.  
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  There are some viewpoints that seem underrepresented. Those sections are Evolution, Predators, Cultivation, and Economic Importance.   
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?  Some of the links do not work. There doesn’t seem to be any close paraphrasing or plagiarism.   
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?  There are one or two sources from the 60s and 70s that could be revisited to ensure relevancy. Also, information needs to be added to the following sections: Evolution, Predators, Cultivation, and Economic Importance.  
• Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic?  How does the topic differ from the way we've discussed these issues in class?   It seems like the discussion mainly circulates around some minor changes (additions/alterations) to information in the article, link changes, and clarifying questions for the writers and readers alike.