User:DoctorDrDandy

OLES2129

Tutorial 8 Peer Review Practice

Good Article: Magic Johnson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Johnson

Well written: English structure is clear, grammatically correct and informative. Introduction properly summarises who Magic Johnson is and what he is known for. Paragraphs are properly divided and information is easily found with the simple layout of writing.

Vertible with no original research: Over 200 references from reliable sources; mostly from news articles and official sources from the NBA. No sign of opinions nor false information. No request for citation, which means every bit of information has been cited correctly. The article even includes several external links for extra information.

Broad in its coverage: Content box covers almost all that is possible to be written about Magic Johnson, from early life to his professional career to his current life as the owner of the Los Angeles Lakers. It even includes his relationships between other players during his era and how Johnson has influenced today’s game of basketball. The article also never sways away from the topic of Magic Johnson to other unnecessary topics.

Neutral: There are no opinions, every bit of information is backed up with reference. The writer is not biassed in any way, and is talking about Johnson in a perspective inside and outside of basketball in the right sections. The writer also does not talk as a fan of the Lakers nor other NBA teams.

Stable: Information is constantly updated, with the last update being last month. However, they are all small fixes and additions of references. The core information is still intact and untouched, it remains clear and shows that it was very solid as an article since 2009 when it appeared on Wikipedia’s main page. A lot of sections in the talk page shows that this article has been intricately built and the informativeness has come from a collection of critics and people asking for more information.

Illustrated: Images are tagged with their copyright statuses and media are relevant to topic with adequate captions underneath. However, with such an informative article with so many sections and paragraphs about different part of Johnson’s life, more images to further describe those parts (for example: his debut in the Olympics) could help the article to become more descriptive for viewers who are less informed about basketball or the NBA. More images can also help the article appear more appealing to read as paragraphs are long and tedious to read in some sections.Article for Improvement

[Marked For Improvement]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Palace_of_Peter_the_Great

Things Done Poorly


 * Subtopics are very brief, often only one to two sentences long. Either they should be collated into more general topics or expanded upon
 * Images are all pooled at the bottom. Should be integrated with article
 * Subtopics follow a direct chronology instead of any actual discussion. Should contain a section for the history of the subject, and other sections that describe other elements e.g. architecture and design
 * Opens far too often with prepositions such as “after” or “during”; makes the article too much like a narrative
 * The ‘Construction” sections contains all its footnotes at the end; it should distribute them throughout the paragraphs where relevant

Things Done Well


 * Is Verifiable with no original research
 * Trustworthy sources and proper formatting for References
 * The information is concise and easy to understand
 * Shows clear research and offers specific and detailed information
 * The images are high quality, easy to see and relevant. The first one is obviously taken by the author of the article
 * Contains good in-text word links to relevant associated topics

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Added Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnosticism&oldid=854713089

Article Edit Analysis: Royal Game of Ur article (Royal Game of Ur). First article contained poor uses of links to other wikipedia pages and contwined areas of poor grammar. Content wise, it was also quite short and had few citations. If I had made the article, deeper connections to more academic references would have been made as well as better structure. The first major edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Game_of_Ur&diff=41308247&oldid=30464497) fixed grammatical errors and added more citations to back up existing arguments. If I had been that editor, I would have also expanded the content with these new references and utilised the new information to a fuller extent.

Week 4: Random Article Improvements

Activity 1; Boston Consumptives Hospital; Improvements can be found in paragraph structure, which offers a convoluted and poorly spaced discussion of the Hospital's features. The lack of citations and poor formatting of the words in relation to the text make for an uncomfortable viewing experience. Could be improved by more effective language, better formatting and citations as well as more content to provide explanations and background.

Activity 2; China National Petroleum Corporation Placed tag for citation in New Zealand section

Activity 3; Postage stamps and postal history of India Marked that the paraphrasing was too close in the 'ancient and medieval' section, created talk page

Activity 4; Mutsu: Mieru Me Added that the characters section required more detail ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Tutorial 4 (Week 5)- Study of Article Features

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sirens_and_Ulysses

- Subheadings are helpful, topics lead into one another (background --> composition --> restoration)

- Brief description of images that are relevant to the topic and mostly provide background

- Contains balanced, opposing critical judgements

- Broader statements always backed up by references to academics

- Lots of references, arranged correctly. Does not rely on too many sources, uses each extensively

- Writing style is brief and expository, but still discusses sophisticated concepts

- Paragraphs are short, clear differentiation between topics

- Images are relevant to the discussed section, reuses images when necessary

- Opener summarises multiple elements and covers basic information

- Includes Template at the end that links to broader topic hyperlinks for further reading

- Explicit references to original academics, clear that article is based off work

- Footnote adds further detail without cluttering the article

Week 6 Tutorial Adding Citations Edited article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vermont&action=history (added citation 63 through source) Edited Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swansea&action=history (added citation 75 through visual)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Week 7 Tutorial

Article: Triptych, May–June 1973

Analysed Source: Sylvester, David (1987). The Brutality of Fact: Interviews With Francis Bacon. (London) Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27475-4

Overview

Sylvester's book is a primary source. It's usefulness in providing insight behind Bacon's methodology and through process behind his infamous 'Triptych' paintings is undeniable, giving valuable insight ito the mind of the artist. In terms of reliability, Sylvester ios both well established, and bases his book off publically released video interviews he had with Bacon. There is little question that these interview transcripts are legitimate, especially considering the fame they garnered at the time in both the academic and public community.

Scholarship

Author’s background - David Sylvester is a well known British art critic and author. While Sylvester recieved no official art critic credentials, his role as an interviewer and his established connections with Francis Bacon's contemporaries (Lucien Freud, Joan Miro ect) and his positive reputation as an art promoter make the reliability of his book quite high. Sylvester also had a close relationship with Bacon, curating his work in an exhibition in 1993, which won him a Golden Lion award. The author's background, clear relation to the subject and reputation as a reliable source thus increase the source's reliability.

Where was the source published? - Sylvester published his interviews with Francis Bacon through the British publisher "Thames & Hudson", an established publishing company based in London and founded in 1949. They cater to an academic and art history orientated audience and operate today with subsidiaries in New York, Melbourne, Hong Kong and Singapore. Thames and Hudson specialises in illustrated books, a perfect match for combining Bacon'sa rtworks with his interview transcript

Is the information within the source independently verifiable? - David Sylvester's interviews are also largely on digital format. Brutality of the Fact is largely an assembled transcript of such interviews. While the probability of his official book not matching up with the interviews, it would be possible to verify quotations and statements taken from the book by looking through the audio/video of the original interviews.

Context

Age of source relative to topic: Sylvester's interviews with Bacon were published fifteen years after the Triptychs were made, and the interviews would have taken place a few years beforehand. While this is significantly later than the artwork's creation, Bacon was still an active artist in the late 80s and was involved in discussing his previous works with various interviewers, Sylvester being the foremost of them.

Intent of information, targeted audience: Sylvester's interviews were designed not just for art critics but a wider audience of English speakers who had seen or were interested in Bacon's provocative work. The intent is to provide insight into Bacon's though process and the process of his creation of the Triptych sets. Though there is perhaps a possibility of the book's financial success influencing the manner of questions asked and the editing of the final transcript, it seems safe to imagine that Bacon's own answers are the focus of the interviews.

Content

Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others?: All interviews, by their nature, provide a limited insight into the interviewees true beliefs. However, Sylvesters interviews took place over many months and engaged with most aspects of Bacon's life, often leaving him to talk for prolonged periods about himself and his works. There of course may be ommissions about personal aspects of Bacon's life, and the interviewee may have intentionally dodged questions, but overall there is no closer way to engage with the details of an artist's life than by asking. Sylvester's pressed discussion of Bacon's personal history at times detracts from details regarding the methodology of painting, but otherwise is not of detriment to the source's quality or reliability/

Is the information fact or opinion? (This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the source from use but does mark against objectivity): Complicated. The source is factual in the sense that it is an accurate primary source that clearly relates the transcript and analysis of the interview, yet can be considered 'opinion' in that is dea;s with a distinctly 'relative' subject manner and asks for the opinions of the artist. However, its intent is not to impose a singular point of view, but to translate what the artist truly believes influenced the creation of the Triptych.

Style and structure of content: Sylvester's book is of significant length, but is clearly laid in seperate sections to reveal to the audience distinctions between seperate interviews and topics of discussion. The artwork pieces that are being discussed are closely related to the nature of the current question, and overall the book is well edited and contains highly relevant content. Bacon's sophisticated answers are matched by Sylvester's insightful questions, and the book has a clear progression of ideas that lead the reader to gain a deeper insight into the nature of Bacon's Triptych

Research Proposal

Name: Reihengräber Culture

URL: en.wikipedia.ord/wiki/Reihengräber_Culture

Wikiproject: WP:RA/NS/Social sciences, Requested articles/Social sciences

Proposal Sections


 * 1) Chronology - Will outline the development of the Late Antiquity society, detailing its rise, prominence and collapse in Gaul and other locations of significance, deisnged to provide an overview, not a comprehensive analysis
 * 2) Site Locations - Will briefly outline the site locations where artefacts and settlements have been found and discuss the discoveries and their relevance as necessary
 * 3) Research History - Will provide a historiographical analysis of site studies and scholarship pertaining to the culture and its artefacts
 * 4) Economy and Craftwork - Will go into detail regarding the nature of the disvoeries and conclusions drawn from scholars regarding how the culture's weconomy functioned
 * 5) Mortuary Practices - As most important artefact sites were mortuary sites, this section will be dedicated to the more detailed understanding of the culture's funerary practices

Sources and Annotation

James, Edward. "Burial and Status in the Early Medieval West." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 39 (1989): 23-40. doi:10.2307/3678976.

This source will largely assist in section 5, but will also be of great use in discussing site locations and outlining the schonology of the culture

MALDONADO, ADRIÁN. "What Does Early Christianity Look Like? Mortuary Archaeology and Conversion in Late Iron Age Scotland." Scottish Archaeological Journal 33, no. 1/2 (2011): 39-54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43923909.

More assistance in section 5, and will also likely contribute to the religious chronology of the sites and give background. It will also justify the addition of a 'Christianity' section if enough information is provided

Theuws, Frans. "Grave Goods, Ethnicity, and the Rhetoric of Burial Rites in Late Antique Northern Gaul." In Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition, edited by Derks Ton and Roymans Nico, 283-320. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n1n2.15.

Contributions to section 4 will be drawn from this section, and almost all discussions in section 4 will have some link to section 5. This will also help in the discussion of sites

Lund, J. (2017). "Connectedness with things. animated objects of viking age scandinavia and early medieval europe". Archaeological Dialogues, 24(1), 89-108. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/10.1017/S1380203817000058

Section 4 focus here, with material archaeology and the process of crafting in the Reihengräber culture discussed here. May also assist with chronology

Gillett, A. (2002). "On barbairan identity: critical approaches to ethnicity in the early Middle Ages" (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2002)

This source outlines controversies regarding the Reihengräber culture's place in the ethnographic readings of scandinavian communities, and may contribute to an addition section in the wikipedia page discussing such. Even without this though, background and sites will assist in sections 1 and 2