User:Dyck9/sandbox

Article Evaluation - Icebox
Article: "Icebox"

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebox

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Yes, the "Icebox" article was relevant to the article topic. I am bothered how there is a lack of historical background. In addition, there needs to be additional details on the icebox's functionality. And there should also be citations linked at the end of sentences.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' Yes, the article is neutral. It seems the article is a little biased towards a general audience. But, there could be more people discussing it such as historians and scientific people too.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints are not over-represented. However, the article is very underrepresented in the historical side, example is how impactful was the icebox? It had great significance before the refrigerator.

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' Yes, the links/references work. The source does not do a great job supporting the claims found in the article. The 1st reference only gives a few details on how the icebox affected families financially, not providing great detail on information such as how the icebox looked, the functionality, design, and the use. The 2nd reference doesn't even allow me to look into the book, even though the reference provides the book page, it makes it look sketchy as a reliable source.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' No, only two sentences are referenced in the article. However, other facts are not referenced at all. I am not sure where the information comes from, they must come from another source that is not referenced. The sources are neutral, they do not have a clear bias towards a side.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' Yes, some missing information is the history of the icebox, the inventor of the icebox, and the impact of the icebox.

'''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?''' Most of the conversations on the talk page mainly discuss minor information, such as reference validity, the picture, and use of past tense? There are no engaging conversations occurring, definitely could have more engaging conversations on more important topics.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' The article is rated as a Start-class. It is part of the WikiProject Food and drink.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The icebox is an important device used back in the heyday, but the history is severely underrepresented. Perhaps there could be greater attraction as an important historical invention that helped out the general public, even though it's not as popular as the light bulb or the car.

Choosing our article
'''Why did you choose it? What's missing? What do you want to add?''' I chose the "Icebox" article because I am interested in past technology and would like expand. The article is primarily missing the historical, societal, and how the invention of the icebox came to be. These are the three things I would like to add.

Look up and starting putting in sources (Disclaimer: Not all these sources are ultimately going to put onto the actual article page) Source 1: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/thomas-moore (Need to request access to it) Source 2: http://mobius-encore.lib.umsystem.edu/iii/encore/record/C__Rb27605669__Sicebox__P1%2C38__Orightresult__U__X3?lang=eng&suite=cobalt (Requested article S&T's Interlibrary Loan) Source 3: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.mst.edu/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3318727 (Article requested by Bob) Source 4: https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/015900/015918/html/15918bio.html (Thomas Moore's biography, provides other great sources)

If have time, start adding to the article's talk page Will in the future Dyck9 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding to an Article
"Copied Section"

Use


Iceboxes date back to the days of ice harvesting, which had hit an industrial high that ran from the mid-19th century until the 1930s, when the refrigerator was introduced into the home. Most municipally consumed ice was harvested in winter from snow-packed areas or frozen lakes, stored in ice houses, and delivered domestically as iceboxes became more common. Addition: Various companies appeared including Sears, The Baldwin Refrigerator Company, and the Ranney Refrigerator Company started up to get into the icebox manufacturing industry. In 1907 survey of expenditures of New York City inhabitants, 81% of the families surveyed were found to possess "refrigerators" either in the form of ice stored in a tub or iceboxes. The widespread use of iceboxes was partially credited with reduction of US infant mortality in summer months.

With metropolitan growth, many sources of natural ice became contaminated from industrial pollution or sewer runoff. As early mechanical refrigerators became available, they were installed as large industrial plants producing ice for home delivery. Able to produce clean, sanitary ice year-round, their product gradually replaced ice harvested from ponds.

With widespread electrification and safer refrigerants, mechanical refrigeration in the home became possible. With the development of the chlorofluorocarbons (along with the succeeding hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons), that came to replace the use of toxic ammonia gas, the refrigerator replaced the icebox, though icebox is still sometimes used to refer to mechanical refrigerators.

Peer Review by Dyck9 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Q: What does the draft do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? A: The draft does a good job explaining the description, type, and location of Iron Ore. Nothing is over the top, good neutral tone.

Q: What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? A: Taking a quick peek at the current article on "Raw Materials", it seems the draft on iron ore seems too much in depth? I would suggest adding in information about the history, importance, and impact of raw materials rather than going in depth with one specific type of raw material. For example, you can talk about an example of what iron ore is used for in-depth and relate it back to what makes it a raw material. I say these changes are an improvement because iron ore can be explained

Q: What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? A: Citation types. When I go to these sites, they do not reference back to a scholarly article or book. Try to find sources that are easily credible and referenced really easily, instead of using web.archive.org. [.org may be considered to be a basis of persuasion, be careful]

Q: Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? A: Using lots of "See Also" external links to other related articles and having good pictures for the article.

Dyck9 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)