User:Jchuerta1992/sandbox
Illustration
[edit]
Article Evaluation
[edit]Article Evaluation
Operating Industries Inc., Landfill
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Everything that was mentioned in the article was relevant to the topic. There wasn't anything that I could find that was distracting.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The article seemed neutral. There doesn't seem to be biased in the article.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I feel like the History portion is underrepresented in this article. Considering that there is a timeline section in the article and some parts of the timeline aren't mentioned in the history.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- One of the links seems broken and says that it doesnt exist. There are two other sources that lead to the main website of a source but not the article so there was no way to verify some of the information.
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?
- Some of the sources to begin with don't seem reliable since the websites aren't peer reviewed journals or non media websites.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- Since there are two sources that are broken then those are most likely out of date. The sources need to be rechecked and edited since they don't seem reliable.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated Start Class on the project quality scale. It is rated Low-Importance on the project's importance scale. The article is part of WikiProject United States. and is supported by WikiProject Superfunds.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different since in class we would go more in depth on how it can impact the surrounding community not only in terms of health but also socially.
Adding to article
[edit]Article "Bronco Student Center"
The Poly Fresh Market was introduced in the fall of 2007 in order to offer students a healthier dining option that wasn't offered before. Since the implementation of the "Green Campaign" on campus, the focus has turned to promoting a healthier living and community. [1]
Below is what is being added to the Wikipedia stub article "Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library"
Added the Whittier Narrows Earthquake and Reconstruction section and also added the history Heading and moved down the history part of it.
Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library
[edit]Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library | |
 Stevenson Branch, 2008 | |
    | |
| Location | 803 Spence St., Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, California |
|---|---|
| Coordinates | 34°1′40″N 118°11′50″W / 34.02778°N 118.19722°W |
| Built | 1927 |
| Architect | Lindsay, George L. |
| Architectural style | Mission-Spanish Colonial Revival |
| MPS | Los Angeles Branch Library System TR |
| NRHP reference No. | 87001021 [2] |
| Added to NRHP | May 19, 1987 |
Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library is a branch library of the Los Angeles Public Library located in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles, California. It was built in 1927 based on a Spanish Colonial Revival design by architect George L. Lindsay.
History
[edit]In 1987, the Stevenson Branch and several other branch libraries in Los Angeles were added to the National Register of Historic Places as part of a thematic group submission.[3] The application noted that the branch libraries had been constructed in a variety of period revival styles to house the initial branch library system of the City of Los Angeles.
Whittier Narrows Earthquake and Reconstruction
[edit]The Branch was temporarily closed in 1987 due to the Whittier Narrows Earthquake, along with 6 other L.A. branch libraries. The structural damage reported totaled approximately $32,000.[4] On July 28, 1988, while the building was closed for repairs, the branch was moved to a temporary location on 3500 Whittier Blvd, Los Angeles. [5][6] Through the relocation process, over ten thousand volumes of books were moved from the damaged library to the temporary location. [7] Funding from the City of Los Angeles Community Development Department was used by Martinez-Hirsch Associates to design and lead the renovation and expansion of the damaged building. [8] Although the library officials expected to be at the temporary location for many years, the library was re-opened on July 3rd, 1991.[7]
 | This is a user sandbox of Jchuerta1992. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
- ^ "Taking a Healthy Walk". FoodService Director. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- ^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. April 15, 2008.
- ^ The Los Angeles Branch Library System TR Multiple Property Submission nomination explains 22 branch libraries but one, the University Branch, appears not to have been listed.
- ^ SOBLE, RONALD L. (1987-10-18). "Quake Shuts Key Units, 7 Branches of L.A. Library". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
- ^ Reagan, Robert (July 21, 1988). "Los Angeles Public Library" (PDF). Library News.
- ^ Local news in brief sites leased for libraries. (1988, Mar 11). Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext) Retrieved from http://proxy.library.cpp.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/docview/292837813?accountid=10357
- ^ a b MAXTONE-GRAHAM, GUY (1988-07-28). "New Chapter : 3 Branch Libraries Shut by Quake to Reopen". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
- ^ http://dbase1.lapl.org/webpics/calindex/documents/13/521764.pdf
Reflective Paper
[edit]- describe and reflect on your research process, and how it may have been similar to or different from other research assignments.
- describe and reflect on the Wikipedia rules, and their ultimate effect on your research and writing outcomes;
- elaborate on anything you would like to write about, but which is not allowed in Wikipedia;
- make suggestions for improving this assignment in the future.
- My research process was somewhat hard since it was hard to find information on the library. From the beginning I had trouble especially after searching through databases on the Cal Poly Library. I did call the Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library as well and I talked to the librarian and she told me that they had a lot of information on events they had held there. But I couldn't see myself adding information about events on the wikipedia page. She also directed me to LA times where she said there should be more information on it. There was only a few historic articles about the library. Then I didn't know exactly what information to add since I couldn't find enough to begin with so I tried making an appointment with the Cal Poly Librarian but she seemed to be very busy this quarter. I did end up meeting with her and she helped me a lot in redirecting my research on the closure of the library and the reopening of it. Since that's the majority of the information that I found. I was able to find sources on LA times about the earthquake that made the library shut down and how it was renovated and then re-opened again.
- I feel like the Wikipedia rules really helped me focus the research on finding and writing information the right way without any bias and getting straight to the point. The information that I found was well sourced and shouldn't be an issue with the Wikipedia rules.
- As much as I'd like to include my personal opinions on certain Wikipedia pages I know that its not the right thing to do and that Wikipedia is a place for well sourced information and not opinionated information.
- My suggestions to improve this assignment would be I guess to maybe work on a whole article as a group rather than by ourselves because since this was my first time working on a Wikipedia article then I felt very pressured and at times confused if I was doing it right.