User:Tarien5
 | This user is a student editor in Everett_Community_College/English_Composition_3738_(Winter). |
Bio
[edit]I'm (1999-Present) a student who lives in Washington. My hobbies are drawing, reading and hiking with my family. I prefer to use more traditional art mediums like paint and charcoal but have recently started making a webcomic with my brother. I mostly read fantsy books and my favorite series is the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini.
I am mostly interested in Wikipedia articals about books and authors that I admire. I do not have very much experience with Wikipedia but am looking forward to learning more about it and possibly editing some pages in the future.
Article review
[edit]I have admired penguins for a long time and wanted to know more about them so I looked on Wikipedia and found some articles about less well known species of penguins. I found an article about Magellanic penguins and I wanted the page to be the best it could be, so I visited the Magellanic penguin page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: its citations, age, and structure.
Citations
[edit]On this page there is some citations, but some sections don’t have any citations. The description only has one citation and the section about statues in the wild only has two citations right at the very end of the section. More citations should be added to make the article more reliable since there are quite a few facts that don’t have citations.
Age
[edit]Some of the citations are fairly old. Although the article has been edited recently some of the citations are over ten years old and one of the links does not work anymore. Having more recent citations will ensure that the information is up to date. It also ensures that the information in the article is reliable.
Structure
[edit]The article has a section about physiological responses that is very short and seems out of place. To make the section fit in more, information should be added to that section. There is also a short section at the end of the article about conservation that needs more information.
Summary
[edit]Overall, I would rate this article five out of ten. Some parts of the article are well done, but many sections do not have citations for the facts, so it is hard to tell how reliable the information is. The article has two sections that could use more information to make the page more complete and improve the reliability of the article.