User:Ashain03/sandbox

Cavia anolaimae - Wikipedia

Cavia guianae - Wikipedia

Both articles are in the rodent stub section, I did a little research on the species and found that both articles copied and pasted data from other websites instead of rewording it and trying to paraphrase it properly.

I found that one of the citations in Cavia guianae - Wikipedia, wasn't even used. I did research on the journal that they did link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00561.x, they didn't even use information from. This website: https://globalwikionline.com/detial/en/Cavia_guianae, I found by typing in the entirety of the Guianae article. They took every word from someone else, and didn't bother citing the right source.

In Cavia anolaimae - Wikipedia, they also use the same strategy of copy and paste, it is also almost word for word the same as Cavia guianae - Wikipedia, except they plug in different locations and names. I found this very confusing and I decided to try to poke around in both of the articles' citations.

Some that they both share are:


 * Woods C. A. and C. W. Kilpatrick. 2005. Hystricognathi pp. 1538-1600 in D. E. Wilson and M. A. Reeder, eds. Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, p. 1553
 * Nowak, Ronald M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World (6th ed.). pp. 1667–1669. ISBN 0-8018-5789-9.
 * Donnum, Jonathan L. & Salazar-Bravo, Jorge. 2010. "Molecular systematics, taxonomy and biogeography of the genus Cavia (Rodentia: Caviidae)"; Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 48(4): 376–388.

Out of the few sources that they both have, they share three of the exact same sources, which makes me question if they were either written by the same person, or both editors copied and pasted whatever their sources said, and plugged in the information for their specific species.

Also, both Wikipedia stubs need pictures! I found plenty of cute ones.

-

- What I added to The Lewis and Clark State Historic Site article.

-

1. What stub did you choose? Why did you choose this one? Copy and past the URL link into your Sandbox

- I chose Astronomy and spirituality - Wikipedia. I chose this one because I had it as one of my listed options to choose long-term, and I think that it has a lot of potential.

2. How do you know that it's a stub: Identify where on the page that you know that this is a stub

- I know that it's a stub because on the talk page it is listed as stub-class, and of low importance.

3. What are some missing or under-developed parts of this stub? A good way to determine this is to compare your stub to a more developed article on the same topic and category. So for example, if you chose a stub-article on a horror novel, look for another Wikipedia article on another horror novel that is more fully developed. What is missing on your stub page in comparison? You should devote 4-5 sentences to answering this question.

- When looking at the 'See also' page on the stub article I chose, I compared it to Role of Christianity in civilization - Wikipedia. The 'Role of Christianity' article contains much more substance and many different sections. The stub-class article only has a general definition/introduction to what the topic is about, and even though there's a general definition, the introduction is even lacking. A few sections that I think would be nice to add would be a section on the history behind religions that look to the galaxy for answers/practitioners that incorporate space into their religion, etc. In the introduction, the original editor uses a personal experience from someone, but just one guy, which I think they make a hasty generalization about based on his experience.

4. In particular, locate the "References" section of the stub. What, if anything, is listed in the references? If the references are hyperlinked, do the links still work?

- There are three references in the stub, one of the references is a book, and the other two are from websites online. All the links still work, but the two website references don't seem to be very reliable.

5. And, when you compare this stub to a well developed article of the same category type, what sections of the overall article are present, and what are missing?

- Pretty much everything is missing from the stub I chose, it could use so many more sections on history, religions that use astronomy/cosmology, and a lengthier introduction.