User:Atgoodwin1/sandbox

Homework 1 Review: Covering the four main topics of the homework, Wikipedia can be summarized as a non-opinionated encyclopedia that is incredibly fluid in nature, with the overall basis of Wikipedia having the objective of flexible learning.

Being able to edit, source-check, and collaborate with other users is what makes Wikipedia a strong foundation for original research, especially because original research is not conducted on the website itself. Editing is a stage-by-stage process where you start in your own realm (Sandbox) to start both your own articles and edit other peoples' works on Wikipedia.

Not everything is appropriate to write about on Wikipedia due to either its confrontational or non-vital nature, subsequently illustrating that Wikipedia does not have everything. The incompleteness of Wikipedia is what makes the website a great source for research, due to its ever-changing nature and capacity to be updated consistently. Through these readings, I as a researcher have come to respect Wikipedia's legitimacy and capacity as an academic tool, encouraging the enthusiasm I have had from the beginning to contribute further to academia.

Article Evaluation (Mr. Olympia)
The Mr. Olympia article, while appearing complete to those who are unfamiliar with the competition, is severely lacking in several places. The organization of the introduction paragraph is simplistic with a decent backstory, however, there are no citations to establish the validity of the narrative. Additionally, many of the recollections from past Mr. Olympia competitions are lacking citations. Finally, Mr. Olympia does not cover the different subcategories at the competition, including but not limited to: Fitness Olympia, Figure Olympia, Bikini Olympia, 212 Olympia, Women's and Men's Physique Olympia, and Classic Olympia. These sub-competitions hold their own places at the Mr. Olympia competition, each with their categorical champions and respective history.

The organizational article is fairly chronological, and for the information available, I believe it is well organized. Most of the language is neutral, even with the descriptions of the competitors coming from the reference of the judges' perspectives. There is a considerable lack of detail in the 1980s sections compared to the other sections, and the missing categories of bodybuilding that have been established at the Mr. Olympia competition is alarming. Due to the lacking citations and information that is not updated from some years, I would rate this article a 4.

Added Information for Mr. Olympia
In 1998, the Mr. Olympia was held for the first time in Las Vegas, Nevada, and each Olympia competition has taken place there since then.

The distinction of natural bodybuilding as a legitimate category of the competition emerged as the Men and Women's Physique categories were created in 2013, establishing a category of bodybuilding where the competitors have a more "natural" figure (usually without the use of doping and growth hormones to obtain the desired physique).

Other Relevant Assignment Information
I feel that my ability to cite and reference on Wikipedia is at a good, respectable level. There are some sources that are tricky, and the manual entry of citations can be a bit confusing, but referencing citation machines as a way to manually enter citations is what is working best for me. That and I have experience with extensive citations in my repertoire already, so nothing with citations and references has surprised me.

To celebrate being done with this article, I am going to sip sweet tea on my front porch, while I rock on my rocking chair, staring out towards the barren fields as I reminisce about the better days of my youth.

Homework 4
In the "As student health interventions" of the Media Literacy Wikipedia Page, much of the text was written like a social media article. Two of the sentences started with "furthermore" and "however." Additionally, much of the content in this section was written passively and lacked strong grounding.

I re-wrote several portions of the article to enhance its objectivity. There was much "can be" and "studies suggest" kind of language that needed to be more solidly affirmed. Also, the overhead section was named "as intervention" which I changed to "Media Literacy as an intervention method."

I also added citations to the same article that the "study" referred to, since the language wasn't clear about which study was which in that section. There was much passive language that I tried my best to make active voice, as well as splitting two big paragraphs into three digestible ones (I also trimmed down the lengths of sentences containing non-vital language).

Homework 5
For this homework, I chose to edit a section on Gary Vaynerchuk's Wikipedia page. In the section under books, his most recent book Crushing It! was not listed, nor were there any references to it in the article. I chose this section to edit because Gary Vaynerchuk is one of my personal idols. Via communication, he is one of the greatest examples I know of personally to exemplify great business communication, leadership communication, small group communication, and online communication. I felt as though it was my just due to edit his page because of his influence on my life and how I communicate with others.

Adding this section in, I included a link to the publisher. I also gave a brief summary of the book's contents, cited with a description on Harper Collin's website to validate my paraphrased summary. I also included a comment about the book and its relevance to another of his books, Crush It!, which had a section underneath the book category.

I also added a new section underneath media titled "The Gary Vee Audio Experience," which includes information about Gary Vaynerchuk's podcast which has gained social traction in 2018. There were also no references to this podcast in the Wikipedia page, so I found it necessary to include this section as well as a citation to the podcast's homepage on Vaynerchuk's website. This was all vital information for a culturally-relevant icon.

I believe I am ready to start my own Wikipedia page. I understand the depth and importance of fact-checking for Wikipedia pages, and that these pages do not just pop up out of thin air without several rounds of additions and revisions. I have a few ideas that I could work on to turn into articles, as time will tell on how these topics pertain to what is required of our own pages.