User talk:Kdiepholz
Kdiepholz, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Kdiepholz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
Article Evaluation
[edit]Strengths -the lead section gives a good overview and is clear -has good structure and organization, but could definitely benefit from expansion -unbiased -reliable sources
Weaknesses -needs some expansion
4. Article started on February 13, 2002 The first version was about 5 sentences, and that’s it. No major changes happened until a photo was added in January 2006. Most active years were 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Seduisant has been the only user who has been consistent throughout all of the years. The last edit was made December 23, 2016, and the most recent input on the Talk page are from the next day. I’m not sure if this would be considered “active.”
5. There are only three posts on the Talk page, primarily concerned with infobox edits. It’s less of a conversation and more of a list of informational postings. Two of the three posts are from Eric, who is only mildly active in the article’s actual editing history.
I edited the wording for the main (now one sentence) of the “Points of Interest” section for clarity. Kdiepholz (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Another Article Evaluation
[edit]Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant. I think that the plot summary could use some fixing though-- add in some details, remove others. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The plot summary is, I would say, probably about 90% neutral, with a few subjective adjectives thrown in. Where does the information come from? Are there enough and a variety of sources? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? There is a large spread of sources that are reliable and neutral. If they’re not neutral, it’s because they are film critics-- which is still okay for where they’re used in the article. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is no mention of any negative reviews for the movie, only positive. However, they do cover most notable review outlets, which may just mean that there are no significant and negative reviews. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Links work, no close paraphrasing or plagiarism that I can see. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Nothing is out of date (I think it’d be difficult to be out-of-date, seeing as how it’s a movie. The information doesn’t change.) I can’t tell that anything is missing. Kdiepholz (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Possible Topics
[edit]Note: Italicized already has an article.
Lake o' the Woods Club Stromae Coeur de Pirate The Foxhole Court Mother Falcon Penguin Cafe Orchestra I Capture the Castle Ballyturk Glass Animals the Oxford comma Cabin Pressure 99% Invisible Man Man Roxaboxen Old Turtle
Roxaboxen is a children’s book about a small “village” that was created by children in Arizona. The book’s page could be connected to pages involved with Yuma, AZ’s history, Roxaboxen Park in Yuma, AZ, the author, and the illustrator. Sources for the page could be the author's website, the city's website, and any historical websites that may have recorded Roxaboxen's existence.
Some old homework from my sandbox
[edit]Look I can bold things.
I can also make a link.
Okay I'll play along bold.
Paragraph: This helps you set the style of the text. For example, a header, or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes.
A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The "More" options allows you to underline, add code snippets, and change language keyboards.
Links: The chain button allows you to link your text. Highlight the word, and push the button. VisualEditor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an "external links" section, for example) click on the "External link" tab.
Cite: The citation tool in VisualEditor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the VisualEditor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Finally, you can click the "re-use" tab if you've already added a source and just want to cite it again.
Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.
Ω The final tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.‽‽‽