User:1013-shae/archive

My Project
My research topic is going to be about Arctic Haze. This topic deserves to be in Wikipedia because it will become more of an issue and harm the environment even more. Artic Haze is defined as a haze that covers the arctic because of pollution in the air. The pollution is 90% sulfur and the rest is carbon which makes the haze reddish in color. The pollution comes from 1000's of miles away. I want to research this issue, and discuss where it comes from and how it can be reduced.

List 1: inner city air pollution, air movement, effects of air pollution, arctic climate, levels of pollutants in haze

List 2: Arctic, Air Pollution, Arctic Haze, Haze, Pollutant Standards Index


 * Thoughts from Josh. Shae, this sounds like a good project. I see there is already a stub up there with some references, which should help you generate a solid 1500-2000 word article. Have you started looking for other research material yet? Have you started thinking about how to organize the material (what subsections you will have, etc)? I moved your homework up to the "My Project" section. The "Homework" section below is just for signing your work. Please format your lists with bullets and wiki links. If you have any questions about your project proposal, write me a note here, and write "QUESTION FOR JOSH" in the edit summary box when you hit the "save page" button. I'll stop by later to answer. 1013-josh 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Workshop: Arctic haze
Workshop Guidelines

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Arctic haze, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit. 1013-josh 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very significant topic, and I'm glad that you've taken it on. You've convinced me that "arctic haze" is a subject worthy of serious study, and you've drafted a focused article on a relatively small subject that nevertheless has an importance place in the larger conversation about atmospheric pollution and global warming. I like that you've gone out and found published studies to ground your article in academic research. You still have quite a bit of work ahead of you, however, in organizing your material. Right now it feels like notes toward an article, but you haven't found a narrative line through the entry. You have some good facts but they don't really connect up yet into an arc. You should think about how best to "tell the story" of arctic haze. Granted, you're writing an encyclopedia entry and not a "story," but I think there is a way to organize material so that it creates a story for the reader, even within the encyclopedic format. So I think some structural work is in order. A few other things: (1) Don't forget proper formatting of footnotes, references, etc. See my formatting page for examples. Your references are not formatted correctly, and you don't seem to provide bibliographic information for the studies at all. (2) You need wikilinks and citations throughout the article. (3) You should also do some work on other articles to get them linked up to artic haze. As I said above, your article makes a significant contribution to Wikipedia's body of knowledge, but there are relatively few articles linking to you, so you'll get lost in the shuffle. (4) Be careful to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of view. You have some problematic spots here, e.g., "beautiful and inspiring." Strive for a more formal encyclopedic tone. Overall, I'm pleased with the direction you're heading, but I think the article needs a bit more shape to it, and I will likely have more comments as you get further along. 1013-josh 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Several of your sentences are also uncomfortably close to the original sources. This often happens in research papers when students are relying too much on one source for a particular piece of information. The best solution is to find multiple source of information and to do more of the synthesizing yourself. For example, you seem to be relying on only one source for the information about Subhankar Banerjee. That's going to get you in trouble sometimes. It's great that you found a columnist with information connecting Banerjee to arctic haze, but then if you're going to use him in the article, you have to go out and gather other sources. You should take greater care in quoting material that needs to be quoted and using in-text citations to mark close paraphrases. As a general rule of thumb, if you take anything more than 5 words from another source, it should be in quotation marks and cited. It's not enough to simply switch a few words around and call it a paraphrase. The idea behind paraphrasing is to incorporate ideas and facts with your existing knowledge about the subject and then report it to the reader in your original language. 1013-josh 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're on the Main Page!

Hi Shae, your article is currently featured on the Main Page of Wikipedia in the "Did You Know?" fact box. It will be up there for the next 6+ hours. You may get some strangers stopping by your article as a result, so check the page history. 1013-josh 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, overall I thought the article was very informative and had a lot of good information. It might be helpful to expand on the introduction section, so readers can get a better summary of arctic haze if they don't want to read the whole article. Your history section seemed to be more focused on the science of arctic haze rather than just the history of it. I think it would be good to either rename the section or change the information in it a little bit to make it more focused on history. I also think that you should try to expand on the origination of pollutants section, maybe talk about the percentages of sources or something. I thought that the recent studies section was well done and complete. Your well-know researchers section only concentrates on one person, making the title of the section not quite correct. You should probably include more researchers to this section. The section on what is to come could possibly use some better organization instead of putting everything in one paragraph. Overall you should put in more wikipedia links and add in footnotes, you could also add more things to the categories at the bottom of the page. 1013-Brendan 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shae, you have a very good start on your paper. Overall, I found it very informative, considering the fact that I didn't know anything about arctic haze before reading it. I liked the section on well-known researchers because it provides specific facts about how Subhankar Banerjee went about studying arctic haze. I agree with Brenden's comment that the title of this sub-section doesn't quite fit because it does only talk about one researcher. You should either add more, or else change it. One other thing I noticed in this section though is that the sentence that begins, "These pictures were beautiful and inspiring...", isn't really a neutral point of view. The history and recent studies sections were also well written. The what is to come section gives us a good insight into what the future has in store regarding arctic haze. I think that you need to research a little bit more on the origination of the pollutants involved in arctic haze because, compared to the other sub-sections, this one is lacking in support. Also, I think it would help your paper if you found some more sources to include in this article along with some footnotes. I added one more source and created a footnote for it as well. Throughout the paper, I added in revisions that you can look at in the history of your page and I might do some more if time allows. Overall, great job so far and good luck with final revisions! 1013-Lisa 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I must say I enjoyed reading about your paper because I never knew such a thing exsisted. Your paper was well argued and well informed. I personally didn't notice any mistakes ( probably because many others have already beat me to it) but I have to agree with Lisa on your resources. If you could just find a few more that will help you cite your paper so it does not seem like you are copying word for word. Which leads me to footnotes, if you could possibly list and cite your footnotes it would help your paper in the plagiarizing area ( not saying that you are, just so it does not seem like you are..I need to do this to on mine!) But overall your paper was well written and great start..good luck on your final paper!1013-rey 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Participation: Shae
I workshopped Marty and Lisa's article. 1013-shae 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some grammatical errors in Marty and Lisa's article. 1013-shae 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I workshopped Loree's article. 1013-shae 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I workshopped Brendan's article. 1013-shae 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Began researching group members' topics. 1013-shae 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Found repetitive information on neonatal nursing. Shows that Loree has found the relevant stuff. I also made some grammar and wording revisions to Loree's article. 1013-shae 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Homework
1013-shae 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, this timestamp is from during class. In the future, please post your assignments before class (or after class before 2 pm). Thanks. 1013-josh 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1013-shae 05:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. In the future, please put a link here to the page you edit so that I can follow your work. (In this case, I was able to find it, so you're fine.) Also, remember to add a comment to the edit summary box to make it easier for other users to follow your changes. You may want to add the film page to your watchlist so you can see what becomes of your changes. 1013-josh 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I give consent to post my Wikipedia project to the public. 1013-shae 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, great! Let me know at any time if you change your mind and would like to switch to an off-line research assignment. 1013-josh 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a homework signature here. Are you done with Monday's homework? You're short on the word count... 1013-josh 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AHHH...i forgot to sign it...here you go. I guess I am a little short at the moment, but by the time you check this I won't be... Sorry serious work obligations... 1013-shae 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. 1013-josh 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you have been making some changes to the original arctic haze article! Can I eventually make mine the article people will see if they research the topic?


 * I didn't really make any changes. All I did was move the stub article from "Arctic Haze" to "Arctic haze," getting it ready for you. You should include the text from the stub in what you're working on at your project draft page. When you finish the rough draft on Friday, I'm going to help you move your draft over to Arctic haze. Then you're going to be the article people will see. 1013-josh 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is over 1000 words of my rough draft. It would be great if you would check it over a little bit and give me some hints. I am going to do the bibliography later tonight, and outline my ideas a little more. 1013-shae 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking good for a rough draft. I think you're ready to transfer over to the mainspace. I prepped your draft for the move by adding a class template and categories from the stub article, and tomorrow I'll help you move it. I will have more comments on content and structure next week during "workshop." 1013-josh 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am finished!!! I wanted to add a picture, but it was complicating. Maybe I'll have one on there before you grade! I hope I did everything correctly. Some of it was confusing as far as referencing. 1013-shae 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes from Josh & the Class
Hey, I just posted some helpful research links; don't miss them! 1013-josh 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes from Wikipedians
Wikipedians, if you're commenting specifically about the Arctic haze article, feel free to chime in in the "Workshop" section above.