User:Whatsup98765/OLES2129

Week 9 Activities

Featured Article: Maple Syrup

The six good article criteria

A good article is—

Well written:
1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The variety of headlines in this article signifies that it is a broad article which covers the main aspects of the topic very well.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. There is a wide variety of sources in the references, from newspapers to official American statistics, which increases the neutrality of the article.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. This article does have ongoing content dispute on the talk page, particularly about the origins of maple syrup. Whilst the article gives a definite answer as to the origin of maple syrup, the talk page indicates that it is contested. The contested historical opinions about the origin of maple syrup should be noted in the article.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There is a good use of images for this article - showing actual maple syrup and the process of making it.

Bad Article: Sichard

The six good article criteria

A good article is—

Well written:
1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article contains a lot of jargon and is hard to understand. The language needs to be simplified.
Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. More references are required for this source, and the references must be more varied.
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Very limited, sparse information.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Whilst the opinions are generally just historical facts, it lacks a broad range of sources to make it neutral.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There is no talk page on this article -reflecting the fact that the article was only recently created.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The image is relevant but the tag needs to describe the image more specifically.

Tutorial 6 Activities

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Adele

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-female-to-have-two-singles-and-two-albums-in-the-uk-top-5-simultaneously

Author’s background Where was the source published? Is the information within the source independently verifiable? It is on the Guinness World Book of Records site which, despite not being independently verifiable, is a reputable institution that is generally acceptable as being true. Whilst the content is not peer-reviewed, due to the widespread reference to the Guinness World Book of Records as a reliable source, it is reasonable to assume that it has been verified and checked.

Age of source relative to topic The source was published in 2011 which is relevant to the article as that is when the award was won by Adele.

Intent of information, targeted audience? The source is probably intended for the general public, and in particular music/Adele fans.

Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others? Is the information fact or opinion? (This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the source from use but does mark against objectivity) No, the information is objective and generally statistical - therefore lessening bias.

Week 4 Activities

Activity 1

Bone Wars

All the images have a good explanatory, linking the images to the contents of the article
The article has great depth yet it is not excessive so as to keep the reader entertained
No bias towards either Cope or Marsh, highlighted in that all the words were quite objective
The titles are chronologically ordered, which is appropriate for historical articles
Provides a full historical overview of the 'Bone Wars', the article details both the aftermath and the background to the event

Week 3 Activities Activity 1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pryor_A._Gibson_III

This source needs to be improved by adding more detailed information, with greater citing. As it is a "biography of a living person" page it needs to adhere to particular rules.

Activity 4:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality (Links to an external site.)

I reviewed this article, adding citations and suggesting a general edit for lack of cohesion.

Week 2 Activity

Activity 2: From Scratch

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_I_Met_Your_Mother&oldid=42285586

I found the first edit of this article to provide a good starting ground for developing the page in the future. Whilst the article does not contain much information, it provides a simple overview of the plot of How I Met Your Mother, and the main characters in the show. It is important, however, to also note that the first edit was created in 2006, when only the first series of the show had aired and therefore the page lacked in-depth information about the show's plot in the later series. Nevertheless, the first edit could have been improved by including a summary of each of the episodes in the first season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_I_Met_Your_Mother&oldid=42266999

The second edit was extremely subjective and voiced the opinion of the editor, exemplified in the first sentence 'How I Met Your Mother is a 2005 crappy CBS sitcom that premiered on September 19 2005.' This is an unsubstantiated claim that does not have an object truth to it. The subjective tone of this edit does not adhere to the aim of Wikipedia to be an objective and balanced encyclopaedia. Furthermore, adding more subheadings would make the article easier to read. Subheading could potentially include: Plot Summary and Reviews of the TV Series.