User:Amay1355/sandbox

Paragraph: Set the style of your text. For example, make 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 (U), cross-out text ( S ), add code snippets ( { } ), change language keyboards (Aあ), and clear all formatting ( ⃠ ).

Links: Highlight text and push this button to make it a link. The Visual Editor 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 the Visual Editor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the Visual Editor 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. Once you've added a source, you can click the “re-use” tab to cite it again.

Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

Insert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.

Ω: This tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extension

Evaluating articles: Red dwarf
all information seems to be in the correct chronological order, citations were credible and worked.
 * OK, that is way too quick and too easy. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! this was my practice one!! ~

Evaluating Articles: Flag of Austria
The lead is good, Austria was linked, along with national flag, and naval ensign.

" It may have seen use in flags from about the 15th century" was written in the lead as well, which i don't believe should be written, because there are no facts to back it up, however it does mention that a citation is needed.

throughout the article, there are a lot of assumptions made. Through just the few lessons of this course, we have been taught not to put those types of things in our articles.

the sources seem to be credible, however half of them were scripted in another language.


 * Alright Ms. Amay, let's have a look. First of all, Austria doesn't need to be linked (see WP:OVERLINK). You didn't know that, but that's OK. The 15th-c thing has a "citation needed" tag, but there are rules for the lead; as I mentioned today, things in the lead don't need to be referenced as long as they are referenced in the article. There's rules/guidelines for that too: Manual of Style/Lead section. Now, the problem is that nowhere in the article there is mention of that fact, with or without a reference, and that is a good reason to cut it from the lead. I'm not sure what you mean with "assumptions": you will need to get more specific. On the whole it's a pretty poorly written article, and doesn't have a lot of references--but I also don't know what you mean with "scripted" in another language. I see that some of the references are in German, but for an article on the Austrian flag that's to be expected, and there is no rule that says sources have to be in English. Now let's get to copyediting, and I'll make a big one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Austria&diff=857165560&oldid=853529518 is the diff of that edit. Click on it and you'll see what I mean. Remember, you have to copyedit three articles, and you have to save the diffs in your sandbox, so now you see how to do that. If I were you, I wouldn't tackle this article anymore since a lot of the sources are probably going to be in German, and this article needs serious sourcing. ;) Dr Aaij (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Distracted driving
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distracted_driving&diff=858181436&oldid=858181162

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distracted_driving&diff=858181436&oldid=858181162

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distracted_driving&diff=858181436&oldid=858181070


 * Yeah but these are all so minor... Dr Aaij (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Equal Citizens

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_Citizens&diff=862535020&oldid=862356484

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_Citizens&diff=862535542&oldid=862535451

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_Citizens&diff=862535451&oldid=862535020

household

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Household&diff=862536386&oldid=862536082

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Household&diff=862536082&oldid=862535854

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Household&diff=862535854&oldid=862463217

Claude Ferguson

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870729606&oldid=870717164

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870729787&oldid=870729606

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870730299&oldid=870729787

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870730520&oldid=870730299

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870731210&oldid=870730520

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Ferguson&diff=870731357&oldid=870731210

Adding to an Article
Prattville High School

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prattville_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=860267369

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prattville_High_School&diff=860273177&oldid=860268396

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prattville_High_School&diff=860273483&oldid=860273367

DYK Nomination
Template:Did you know nominations/Tawasa people

Featured Article Evaluation
We Are the World

* this article was promoted to a Featured article on October 24, 2009, and was featured on the front page on March 7, 2010. There were 21 users who commented on the talk page, many with very in-depth comments. The one Review that helped bring the article to become featured was very detailed, and met all of the concerns of the reviewer. The reviewer was very specific in the comments, and made sure to explain exactly what they felt needed to be changed. As for the sources, the reviewer was very clear when saying that the sources were old, and needed to be updated. He was very good in showing the issues he had with the article, in return giving a great review to follow. Many of the reviews were single comments: change this, I like it this way better. However, some of the reviews were questions of relevance and irrelevance.

Women and the Internet
"Women and the Internet" is an article that points out harassment/bullying side of the internet. The article mainly points out the harassment that goes on in social media. The social aspect of the internet is a feasible way to get into someone's head, and really scare them. As read in the Article, the amounts of death threats to women is substantially higher than men, and I believe that is because men feel women are inferior to men, therefore making it easier to mess with women. The internet is a great place to learn almost anything, meet new people, and discover the world. However, the internet is also a campground for bullies, psychopaths, and even serial rapists. The social media aspect of the internet however, is the worst.

This article speaks a lot about how when women use social media, they are pretty much allowing men to come and harass them. The article also talks about how when someone is harassed online, nobody is really going to do anything about it unless there is real physical threat. This is not okay. For example, Amanda Hess, the author of the article had an online serial stalker, who would tweet at her making death threats, and vulgar comments. When she called the police, they sent an officer to her hotel to get some information, however she felt HE was not taking her seriously. The article also talks about how the highest percentage of police officers and feds is male. Speaking from a female's point of view, I agree when saying that male police officers scare the life out of me. So, when filing a report with a male officer about a harassment speculation, she probably felt like the officer did not care. The issues with women and the internet do go farther than the internet.

Criado-Perez had somewhat of a similar occurrence that Hess did, however the officials believed that they were incapable of helping her, and that twitter was to blame. Personally, it does not look like women will ever be able to escape the troubles that come with the internet and social media, however just like the article says, maybe turning the other cheek will be what ultimately helps the situation. It is not okay for women to be harassed over and over again like this over social media, however this issue is another issue that probably will not be fixed any time soon.

Vandalism!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riparian_buffer&curid=14693108&diff=866210773&oldid=847648260

"I have aids" could be considered offensive to some people, making it vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption_2&curid=52023256&diff=866204889&oldid=866203235

This editor blanked the entire page, deleting all information previously laid out on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Percentile_rank&curid=225965&diff=866196865&oldid=814977360

"Anything with boy spelled BOI is considered vandalism" -Dr. AAij

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thirteen_Colonies&curid=34681&diff=866197952&oldid=866197459

"im gay" could also be considered offensive, and does not belong in this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodium&curid=26826&diff=866197767&oldid=866061408

"Bullshit" is vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Townsend_Harris_High_School&curid=2429669&diff=866209655&oldid=849168629

"get wreked haha" -- WHAT?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_box_theater&curid=180246&diff=866203458&oldid=866203268

people have to get creative with how they can put offensive language into Wikipedia, and this person hit the nail on the head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_High&curid=28193070&diff=866204895&oldid=864275952

…………………./´¯/)

………………..,/¯../

………………./…./

…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸

………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\

……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)

………\……………..’…../

……….”…\………. _.·´

…………\…………..(

…………..\………….\… this is so inappropriate. (:


 * But I asked for explanations... Dr Aaij (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

This article talks about the reliability of Wikipedia, along with studies done about the reliability of Wikipedia. The article is in favor of Wikipedia's reliability, and even mentions that Wikipedia is their "preference by default". The article uses examples of how some Wikipedia Science articles are just as in depth and accurate as the Physician Data Query, the research side of the NCI. There were a few tests completed that were observed in the article as well. One in particular, tested the differences in reliability with pop music, and reliability with science articles. The results showed that there were more inaccurate facts in the pop music article, than the science article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?utm_term=.77935da2024c

This article talks about the reliability of Wikipedia, when it comes to science articles. It talks about how many of the articles that are more likely to become unreliable, if they are controversial topics. It mentions that they may not be unreliable, however more people are more likely to add their information into the articles, making them less reliable when inaccurate information is added. However the article looks at both sides, saying that it is also shown that the more an article is edited, the higher the quality of the article. On another note, the article talks about how science articles can sometimes suffer, because most of them are written by single authors. This article shows that pretty much any article on Wikipedia can be unreliable, it really just depends. Not all controversial articles are unreliable, neither are science articles or pop articles.