User:Gregdu/sandbox

ENGL 304 Wikipedia Reflection Essay
Although working on the citations and the design of a Wikipedia article does not sound like a glamorous job, it was an important task that had to be done. A Wikipedia article is useless if its design makes it difficult to understand its content. Likewise, an article is only as good as its sources, and it is impossible to confirm if those sources are reliable if they are not cited well. This project was also an enlightening experience because it taught me not only the complexities of editing a Wikipedia article but also what Wikipedia is meant to be. Here is my reflection on the work that I did with my group.

My main task was to clean up the citations in the Cymbeline article. This does not sound like much, but it was very involved process. When I group first looked at this section of the page, it was a complete mess. The format of the citations were complete inconsistent, some citations were just references to previous citations under the assumption that the reader would immediately understand this, and some citations could not even be checked because they had dead links. Furthermore, there were about 50 of these citations that needed to be edited one-by-one, and by the time the other groups added there changes, there were almost 120 citations in total.

Although I did receive help from my group members, the process of going through all of these sources still took entire days of tedious searches through the bloated websites they linked to, but I believe that all of this effort was worth it because I can now confirm that each critical source listed in the citations section, which other readers will have to use to know that the content of the Cymbeline article is true, is as good as it will ever be.

This leads me into my next topic: what I learned about editing Wikipedia. To be succinct, I learned that it is rather complicated. I never would have imagined that major changes to an article would start at a sandbox page that anyone can looked at, and only after others have approved of the content of this sandbox should the changes be made to the article. Additionally, it seems weird to me how Wikipedia has its own programming language built into it. This proved to be meddlesome when our group was formatting the layout of the citations section because only one of us understood how the language works well enough to edit it, so we had to supply her with the citations so she could add them herself. This did prove to be a worthwhile effort in the end because the citation's section looks cleaner than it did before.

I also did not know the extent to which Wikipedia allows editors to talk to each other. I always suspected that editors could privately message each other, but I did not expect Wikipedia to have a forum built into every page including other users' sandboxes. This proved to be a useful tool because it allowed me to offer the user SManbs some advice on how their group was editing the sources section. Specifically, I noted that they should elaborate on how the sub-plots in Cymbeline were inspired by The Decameron and how other works could have inspired those subplots; because of these comments, this information is now part of the current article. We also received some comments from classmates that suggested how we could further improve the layout and positioning of content, which was very helpful for us.

What I ultimately learned is that Wikipedia is a group effort. Collaboration takes place at all levels, whether its the "Interpretations" section or the "References" section because it is easy for mistakes to slip between the cracks when anyone can edit an article. Wikipedia is noticeably harsh in regards to mistakes. Even minor issues such as insufficient sources are an inappropriate sentence structure is enough for an article to be considered unfinished. As a result, quality can be found in almost every article, including the lower ranking ones.

ENGL 305 Reflective Essay
Ultimately, a Wikipedia article depends on both its design and its citations just as much as any other aspect of it. Without a good design, an article is difficult to follow, and without good citations, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine if the sources used, which dictate whether or not an article can even be trusted, are reliable. For these reasons, I chose to work on the article's citations as part of the citations and design group, and in doing this work, I discovered both the complexities of editing a Wikipedia article and the purpose and nature of Wikipedia as a whole. Here is my reflection on the work that I did with my group.

My main task was to clean up the citations in the A Game at Chess article, which proved to be a somewhat difficult task. By the time all of the groups finished posting their edits to the Wikipedia article, there were a total of 17 citations that each had to be analyzed to ensure that they were cited properly. One of the main things that made this difficult is that the different groups adhered to different citation styles, so this task became an effort in trying to find the source online, going through that source to pick out details that were left out of the original citations, and putting the citation back together myself so that I could be sure that they all fit the same format. This proved to be a tedious task that took several hours to complete.

Then, there was the process of actually adding these citations to the final website, would was a two-step process. First, I had to fiddle with Wikipedia's source code in order to get the sources to appear in two columns because I was not happy with how they looked in a one-column list. Although finding where the sources would be in the source code took some effort, I was pleased to discover that editing it to achieve my goals was not as involved. I was a little disheartened when I learned that Wikipedia does not adhere to HTML, so I had to spend some time reviewing Wikipedia's documentation on its source code in order to figure out how to get the two column layout I wanted. Fortunately, it proved to be a matter of adding a few lines of code that I never would have figured out myself. The second step was changing the references in the article so that they would reference the sources that were added. This became unexpectedly complicated due to the combination of how Wikipedia numbers references and how the citation builder tool works. In short, I had completely replace each numbered reference by constantly cross-referencing the changes I made to the current state of the article so that I knew that I was adding the right references to the right places.

Updating the citations may sound like an easy task, but it proved to be difficult because of these issues. As such, I believe that I have made a meaningful contribution to both my group's work and the overall article.

Now is a good time to discuss what I learned about editing Wikipedia, which turned out to be an involved process. I did not think that changes made to an article would start at an independent "Sandbox" page that other users would review before those changes are officially added to the main page. I also did not expect Wikipedia to be built around a sophisticated language. Just one look at the documentation proved to me that there is a lot that you can do to design and style a page. However, this proved to be somewhat problematic because the visual editor will not let users interact with complex designs especially when it involves references, so rather than using the visual editor, I had to view the source code and add the two column layout manually.

I also discovered the number of tools Wikipedia has to allow users to communicate with each other, including edit summaries, talk pages, editing sandboxes among other things. I utilized some of these tools when I peer reviewed the user Abbey298 by providing some advice on how her group's section should be laid out. Among other things, I noted the "Prologue" and "Introduction" sections should be combined because both sections were too short on their own. It looks like the group listened to these suggestions, because the Prologue and the Introduction sections are now group up together in addition to the other changes the group made. We also received some minor comments about how information in the "Texts" section should be presented, which was beneficial for our group.

The most important thing I learned about Wikipedia, though, is that it is a group effort. It is important that collaboration occurs at all levels to maximize the quality of the content on any given page is as good as it will ever be. Otherwise, there would be no reason to rely the content found on Wikipedia. Given that anyone can edit articles, there is always the possibility of information in the article being incomplete, lacking sources, or simply wrong. However, the amount of collaboration on Wikipedia ensures that these problems will be corrected relatively quickly.

Instructor feedback on textual differences note
I'd recommend two sentences, beginning as follows: "The manuscript and printed forms of the text present significant orthographical differences as well as some differences in the plot and characters prefixes. For example, early manuscript forms of the play lack the Prologue,"

I'd then cut the other clause (since this also happens in the printed text), include one or two other important differences in the second sentence (such as the ambiguity of the character prefixes in the early form), and cite the Gary Taylor early form edition.

When it's ready, please add it as a third paragraph in the "Texts" section and let me know when you have done so.

Textual differences
The early and later forms of the text present significant orthographical differences as well as some differences in the plot and the characters, for example, the lack of the Prologue from the early form and the explanation of the form instead through a conversation between Ignatius and Error.

Instructor feedback
Okay, you may proceed after the other teams have made their edits (after Sunday 4/28).

Jared: you may include one or two (brief and neutral) sentences about the differences between the early manuscript version in the "Texts" section of the article. Don't edit the synopsis, since that would be confusing for readers. Please post the exact text you will add as a new section in this sandbox, then notify me and wait for me to edit or approve.

Design Edits (A Game at Chess - ENGL 305)
One of the first edits that we will be making to the design is the positioning of all the photos on the website. At the moment the pictures are in their own separate block and it makes the pictures look like they are separate from the content on the page. Another problem is that when using the mobile app all of the photos come up first because of the formatting and this makes the page more difficult to read. The plan for fixing this is to place the photos into separate sections of the whole article to evenly space them out and make the paragraphs look better and not bunched up. Also to add the photos to sections that are focused towards a specific character when it applies. We will also attempt to gather new photos for the page and help place any photos that other groups would like to add to their sections.

Another edit that we will be making to the page is to check every link on the page and make sure that they are all working links. If we find a dead link we either change it or remove the link to that reference. Along with that we will be checking that every citation and reference on the page is up to date, reliable, and in the correct format.

Along those we will also be editing the positioning and formatting of all the original and added sections from the other groups. In order to make these changes however we will need to wait for the other groups to finish their parts of the project so that we can format correctly what they have created and added. A big section that we are going to focus on formatting is the "Character" section of the page. As it is, it currently does not look very pleasing on the page and it is very confusing to read and look at. We will attempt to coordinate with the character group to make the process easier; however most of our work will come after the group has finished all their edits. The biggest formatting issue will be deciding what order to put the sections in and making sure that the headings, width of paragraphs, and references and links are all correct.

We went to the different groups to figure out which characters their parts would put more emphasis on so we could plan to place images of the characters that they represent in areas of their content where they are mentioned so readers eyes could have an easier time imagining who they are reading about. We also determined that separating where we place images instead of having it all under characters would be more aesthetically pleasing.

The section for sources and references require some reformatting to fit into the orthodox of Wikipedia's sources section (see: Romeo and Juliet). It involves the use of the template structure to create reference tables.

Overall, Daniel and Zack will be responsible for managing the redesigning of the article as outlined above. To reiterate, the two working together will be response for managing and correcting the images that are currently on the page or will be added by one of the other groups and reformatting the layout of the article and the positioning of sections within the article. As for Gregory and Jared, the two working together will be responsible for managing the citations and links in the article. Specifically, Gregory will be responsible for updating the current references sections in addition to finding new sources wherever needed, and Jared will search for dead links and assist Gregory as needed. Of course, either of these two teams will assist each other if time permits.

Comparing the Early and the Later Form (A Game at Chess - ENGL305)
Certain pieces of the plot and character descriptions require additions that elucidate the differences between the early form and the later form of the play.

Prologue does not appear in the early form. The structure of the induction is different, and Error and Ignatius of Loyola deliver the form and background to the play.

Gregory's Suggestions

If you could find a source that supports this claim, I think it would be interesting if this was added to the end of the leading section of the article as an additional detail. However, our primary focus should be to fix the citations and look for new ones to add to the article instead of adding our own content to it.

Updated Citations:
The text below is the completed portion of the updated references and citations sections. It will replace the outdated Notes & References section of the Cymbeline article once all of the citations have been added to these sections.

References (A Game at Chess - ENGL 305)

 * 1) Heinemann 1975, p 232-250
 * 2) "Thomas" 2007
 * 3) Beneš 2016, p. 18-52
 * 4) Howard-Hill 1991, p. 274–285
 * 5) Gurnis 2018
 * 6) Redworth 2003
 * 7) Aaron 2003, p. 120
 * 8) "Middleton" 2018
 * 9) Taylor 2007, p. 712
 * 10) Middleton 2007, p. 1773-1824
 * 11) Cogswell 1984, p. 273-288
 * 12) Bicks 2009, p. 463-484
 * 13) Sargent 1971, p. 721-730
 * 14) Taylor 1994, p. 283-314
 * 15) Wittek 2015

Sources (A Game at Chess - ENGL 305)

 * Aaron, Melissa. (2003). "Global Economics: A History of the Theatre Business, the Chamberlain's/King's Men, and Their Plays, 1599–1642". University of Delaware Press.
 * Beneš, Jakub S. (8 December 2016), "Narrating Socialism in Habsburg Austria", Workers and Nationalism, Oxford University Press, pp. 18–52, ISBN 9780198789291, retrieved 26 April 2019.
 * Bicks, Caroline (2009). "Staging the Jesuitess in 'A Game at Chess'". Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 49 (2) – via JSTOR.
 * Cogswell, Thomas (1984). "Thomas Middleton and the Court, 1624: "A Game at Chess" in Context". Huntington Library Quarterly. 47 (4). doi:10.2307/3817364 – via JSTOR.
 * Dutton, Richard (2004). Milling, Jane; Thomson, Peter (eds.). "Thomas Middleton's A Game at Chess : a case study". The Cambridge History of British Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521650403.018.
 * Heinemann, Margot (March 1975). "Middleton's A Game at Chess: Parliamentary‐Puritans and Opposition Drama". English Literary Renaissance. 5 (2): 232–250. 10.1111/j.1475-6757.1975.tb01321.x. ISSN 0013-8312.
 * Gurnis, Musa (2018). Mixed Faith and Shared Feeling: Theater in Post-Reformation London. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ISBN 9780812250251. OCLC 1010542474.
 * Howard-Hill, T. H. (1991). "Political Interpretations of Middleton's 'A Game at Chess' (1624)". The Yearbook of English Studies. 21. doi:10.2307/3508494. ISSN 0306-2473.


 * Keenan, Siobhan (2014). "Acting Companies and Their Plays in Shakespeare's London". London: Arden.
 * Middleton, Thomas (1966). Harper, J.W. (ed.). A Game at Chess. London: Ernest Behn Ltd.
 * Middleton, Thomas (2007). Taylor, Gary; Lavagnino, John (eds.). Thomas Middleton : the collected works. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198185697. OCLC 163311360.
 * "Middleton, Thomas (1570?–1627)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
 * Redworth, Glyn. (2003). The Prince and the Infanta: The Cultural Politics of the Spanish Match. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300101988. OCLC 52946694.
 * Sargent, Roussel (1971). "Theme and Structure in Middleton's 'A Game At Chess'". The Modern Language Review. 66 (4). Retrieved 22 April 2019 – via JSTOR.
 * Taylor, Gary (Spring 1994). "Forms of Opposition: Shakespeare and Middleton". English Literary Renaissance. 24. – via JSTOR.
 * Taylor, Gary; Lavagnino, John, eds. (2007). Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198185703.book.1. ISBN 9780198185703.
 * Wilson, Edward; Turner, Olga (1949). "The Spanish Protest Against "A Game at Chesse"". The Modern Language Review. 44 - via JSTOR
 * Wittek, Stephen (2015). "Middleton's A Game at Chess and the making of a theatrical public". Studies in English Literature. 55 (2). – via Proquest.

References (Cymbeline - ENGL 304)

 * 1) Dobson & Wells 2001, p. 101
 * 2) Dobson & Wells 2001, p. vii
 * 3) Hoeniger 1957, p. 133
 * 4) Shakespeare 2017
 * 5) "Decameron" 2010
 * 6) "Here" 2019
 * 7) Shakespeare 1955, p. xxv-xxvi
 * 8) Shakespeare 2017
 * 9) Dobson & Wells 2001, p. 101
 * 10) Collier 1998, p. 39
 * 11) Halliday 1964, p. 366
 * 12) Dodwell 2013
 * 13) Nye 2012
 * 14) Cull 2018
 * 15) Muir 1961, p. 39
 * 16) Harcourt 1922, p. 64
 * 17) Bloom 2000, p. 2
 * 18) Shakespeare 1998, p. 2
 * 19) Dobson & Wells 2001, p. 91
 * 20) Halliday 1964, p.125
 * 21) Dowden 1899, p. xli
 * 22) Odell 1920, p. 94
 * 23) Pollock 1875, p. 526
 * 24) Odell 1920, p. 596
 * 25) Martin 1998, p. 213
 * 26) Leiter 1986, p. 105
 * 27) Leiter 1986, p. 107
 * 28) Trewin 1964, p. 304
 * 29) Findlater 1983, p. 18
 * 30) Levin 1962
 * 31) "Shakespeare in." 1974
 * 32) Potter 2002, p. 100
 * 33) Patalay 2008
 * 34) "Confusion" 2007
 * 35) Cymbeline Reviews 2013.
 * 36) Cymbeline 2013.
 * 37) Dunnett 2013.
 * 38) Kleij, Mullin, & Williamson 2014.
 * 39) Odell 1920, p. 62
 * 40) Hazelton 1927, p. 103–4
 * 41) Dowden 1889, p. xli
 * 42) Odell 1920, p. 262
 * 43) Dowden 1889, p. xlii
 * 44) Hart 2011, p. 170
 * 45) Dukore & Shaw 1973, p. 212
 * 46) "BFI Screenonline" 1983
 * 47) "Ethan Hawke" 2013
 * 48) Patten 2013
 * 49) Patten 2013

Sources (Cymbeline - ENGL 304)

 * "BFI Screenonline: Cymbeline (1983)". BFI Screenonline. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
 * Bloom, Harold (2000). Shakespeare's Romances. Philadelphia: Chelsea House.
 * Collier, Susan (1998). Kendall, G.M. (ed.). "Cutting to the Heart of the Matter: Stabbing the Woman in Philaster and Cymbeline". Shakespearean Power and Punishment: A Volume of Essays. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 9780838636794.
 * "Confusion and Deception as a Royal Family Affair". The New York Times. 4 May 2007.
 * Cull, Marisa. (2014). "Shakespeare's Princes of Wales: English Identity and the Welsh Connection." Oxford University Press.
 * Cymbeline Reviews. 2013.
 * Cymbeline – The Belgrade Theatre, Coventry. 2013.
 * "Decameron, Second Day". Decameron Web. 18 February 2010. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
 * Dobson, Michael; Wells, Stanley (2001). The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198117353.
 * Dodwell, Martin. (2013). "Secrets of Cymbeline". the neat-herd's daughter. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
 * Dowden, Edward, ed. (1899). Cymbeline. Indianapolis: Bowin-Merrill.
 * Dukore, Bernard; Shaw, Bernard (1973). Playwright: Aspects of Shavian Drama. University of Missouri Press.
 * Dunnett, Roderic (20 September 2013). "Cymbeline review at Belgrade Theatre Coventry". The Stage. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
 * "Ethan Hawke To Reunite With 'Hamlet' Director For Modern-Day 'Cymbeline'". Deadline. 31 July 2013. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
 * Findlater, Richard (1983). These Our Actors. London: Elm Tree Books.
 * Halliday, F.E. (1964). "A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964". Baltimore: Penguin. ASIN: B000J6020S.
 * Hart, Jonathan (2011). Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Palgrave Macmillan
 * Hazelton, Spencer (1927). Shakespeare Improved: The Restoration Versions in Quarto and on the Stage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 * "Here begynneth a propre treatyse of a marchauntes wyfe, that afterwarde wente lyke a man and became a grete lorde, and was called Frederyke of Iennen". Early English Books Online. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
 * Hoeniger, F.D. (1957). "Two Notes on Cymbeline". Shakespeare Quarterly. VIII. doi:10.2307/2867546.
 * Kleij, Sonja; Mullin, Romano; Williamson, Matt. "Cymbeline (Phizzical) @ Grand Opera House, Belfast, 2013". Reviewing Shakespeare. Retrieved 9 January 2014.
 * Leiter, Samuel, ed. (1986). Shakespeare Around the Globe. New York: Greenwood Press.
 * Levin, Bernard (1962). Daily Mail.
 * Martin, White (1998). Renaissance Drama in Action. London: Routledge.
 * Muir, Kenneth. (1961). "Last Periods of Shakespeare, Racine, Ibsen". Wayne State University Press.
 * Nosworthy, J. M. (1955). Preface in Cymbeline: Second Series.
 * Nye, Robert. (2012). "The Late Mr. Shakespeare." Arcade Pub. ISBN: 1611457157.
 * Odell, G. C. D. (1920). Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. New York: Scribners.
 * Patalay, Ajesh (30 August 2008). "Tom Hiddleston: Not just a Romeo". The Telegraph. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
 * Patten, Dominic (7 August 2013). "Penn Badgley Added To Shakespeare Adaptation 'Cymbeline'". Deadline. Retrieved 8 August 2013.
 * Patten, Dominic (8 August 2013). "Resident Evil's Milla Jovovich Joins Shakespeare Modernization 'Cymbeline". Deadline. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
 * Pollock, Frederick, ed. (1875). Macready's Reminiscences and Selections from His Diaries and Letters. New York: Macmillan
 * Potter, Lois (2002). The 2001 Globe Season: Celts and Greenery. Shakespeare Quarterly.
 * Shakespeare in Great Britain. Shakespeare Quarterly. 1974.
 * Shakespeare, William (1955). Nosworthy, J.M. (ed.). Cymbeline. Aberdeen University Press.
 * Shakespeare, William (1998). Warren, Roger (ed.). Cymbeline. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 * Shakespeare, William (2017). Wayne, Valerie (ed.). Cymbeline. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ISBN 9781904271291.
 * Strachey, Lytton. (1922). "Books and Characters". Harcourt.
 * Trewin, J.C. (1964). Shakespeare on the English Stage, 1909–1964. London: Barrie Rocklith.


 * 1) "Cymbeline". Hudson Shakespeare Company. 7 August 2004. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
 * 2) Patalay, Ajesh (30 August 2008). "Tom Hiddleston: Not just a Romeo". The Telegraph. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
 * 3) Isherwood, Charles (4 May 2007). "Confusion and Deception as a Royal Family Affair". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
 * 4) Ouzounian, Richard (1 June 2012). "Theatre Review: Stratford's Cymbeline a solid success". The Star. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
 * 5) Tutton, Mark. "All the world's a stage as Shakespeare goes to South Sudan". CNN. Archived from the original on 20 April 2019. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
 * 6) Collins, Toby (9 May 2012). "South Sudan Theatre Company perform Cymbeline in London – Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan". www.sudantribune.com. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
 * 7) Bloomekatz, Ari (16 May 2012). "South Sudan troupe sees new country's struggle in Shakespeare". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 21 April 2019.
 * 8) Wilson-Lee, Edward (2016). Shakespeare in Swahililand. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. pp. 238–241. ISBN 978-0-374-26207-5.
 * 9) Matzke, C. (2013). Performing the Nation at the London Globe – Notes on a South Sudanese Cymbeline ‘We will be like other people in other places’. In M. Banham, J. Gibbs, F. Femi Osofisan, J. Plastow, & Y. Hutchison (Eds.), African Theatre 12: Shakespeare in and out of Africa (pp. 61-82). Boydell & Brewer.
 * 10) Trueman, Matt (4 May 2012). "Cymbeline – review". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 20 April 2019.

Note for Dr. Trudell: The content in this sandbox includes my submissions for both the ENGL 304 and ENGL 305 assignment.

ENGL 304 Article: Dijkstra's Algorithm

I chose to evaluate Wikipedia's article on Dijkstra's algorithm because it is a well-known path-finding algorithm that is highly relevant in computer science. These are the things I observed about the article.

To begin, content is sufficient for anyone who wants to get a general idea of this article. It's summary paragraph does a good job at highlights all the important information about the algorithm, including a detailed description, its basic history, how it works, and how efficient it is. However, the other sections of the article leave much to be desired. The history section only discusses the algorithm's creation, a redundant section essentially repeats the information in the section before it, and the last part of the section that reviews problems and algorithms similar to Dijkstra's algorithm appears to be underdeveloped. However, the portion of the article explaining how the algorithm borders on having too much content.

The tone of the article is better, though. The article does not give an explicit opinion about the topic, and even words that would imply an opinion, such as "interestingly" and "fortunately" are hard to find in this article. Additionally, no viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, and there are no biased claims. This is likely because the topic of the article is not controversial, so there is not much of a reason for editors express their opinions about it. However, it should be noted that the article does occasionally refer to the reader directly by using words such as "your" and "our," but this is not a prevalent issue in the article.

The citations in the article are sufficient as well. All the citations seem to work and most of the sources are relevant journal articles, primary sources, and textbooks that support the information that is being cited. However, some of the sources are from websites and other sources that are not carefully peer-reviewed, but this is not too problematic because the information in the sources appears to be carefully researched, the sources are unbiased, the information supports the facts in the article that are being cited. Unfortunately, the article does not adhere to Wikipedia's rule-of-thumb of having one source per paragraph. This is most noticeable in the sections of the article that outline how the algorithm works and the proof for the algorithm, which alarmingly do not have any citations at all.

Lastly, the talk page demonstrates that a lot of focus is being put into this page. There are over 50 posts that focus primarily on improving the grammar, changing the animation that shows how the algorithm works, and clarify the information in the article. Additionally, the talk page shows that the article is part of the WikiProjects for computer science, computing, and mathematics, so people are able to keep a close eye on it. However, the article is listed as a Class C, which suggests that the article will need more work before it can be considered a good article by the community.

Personally, the article is appropriate for anyone who is learning about Dijkstra's algorithm for the first time. However, its status as a Class C reflects the fact that it still needs more polish before it can be considered truly complete.

ENGL 305 Article: Knight's Tour

I believe that the knight's tour article deserves to be evaluated because it is an interesting topic that is related to computer science. This is what I observed in the article.

First, the content of the article is well-thought-out albeit a little light. The summary paragraph adequately explains all the information in the article, and every other section, including the theory behind the problem, the history of the problem, it's existence, the number of solutions, and how these solutions can be programmed into a computer, are relevant and up to date. However each of these sections excluding the section about how computers can be coded to solve this problem are noticeably short, which begs the question as to whether or not important or even critical information has been left out. Additionally, it appears that section about how computers can be coded to solve the problem has received too much attention and is about as long as several of the other important sections combined, but this is not too problematic because everything within this section is relevant to the topic of the article. Ultimately, the only thing that needs to be improved is the amount of content in the article.

The tone in the article is also fine. The article does not take any kind of position in any of its sections, and words that would imply a position are also not found in this article. Furthermore, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented, and there are no biased claims. This is likely because the topic of the article is not a controversial issue, so there is no reason for anyone to express their opinions in it. The article even avoids referring to the reader directly by not using words such as "you" or "yours."

The citations are sufficient as well. All the citations work and lead to sources that support the facts in the article. Also, some of the sources are relevant documents such as textbooks, interviews, and research documents. Unfortunately, some of the other sources include public websites, but this is not too much of an issue because these sources appear to be unbiased, the information is carefully researched, and it supports the facts that are being cited. Lastly, each section of the article has an appropriate number of citations, so it is safe to assume that the information in the article can be trusted.

Finally, the talk page shows that people are working to improve the quality of this article. There are about 20 posts that mostly discussion different ways to program solutions and the different types of tours. There are also a few minor discussions complimenting the good quality of the article and explaining how the layout of the article can be further improved. It should be noted that the article is part of the WikiProjects for Mathematics and Chess WikiProject, so there are people who are keeping a close eye on the article. On top of all of this, the article is listed as a Class B, which suggests that it is mostly complete and only needs minor adjustments.

I still believe that a majority of the sections in this article could use more content, but besides that, I believe that it deserves its Class B status. Each section is well-written, appropriately cited, has a proper tone, and has a somewhat lively talk page that shows that the article is receiving support from the community. This article is sufficient for anyone who wants to have a deeper understanding of the knight's tour.

ENGL 304 Cymbeline Edits

I am with the group that is updating the citations and design of the Cymbeline article. I will be going through all of the sources that are already posted in the Wikipedia article along with the additional sources the other groups gather as they complete their sections of the Wikipedia article and make sure they adhere to a single format. Also, I will assist Amelia and Halle as needed and ensure that all of the current and new content in the article is sufficiently cited.

As of right now I have catalogued the sources and the pages cited, and we are using the following format for the citations: Author’s Last Name, Author’s First Name. (Publication Year). “Document Title”. Publisher’s Name. Volume Number (Edition Number). ISBN or DOI number.

ENGL 305 A Game at Chess Edits

I am with the group that is updating the citations and design of the A Game at Chess Article article. I will be going through all of the sources that are already posted in the Wikipedia article along with the additional sources the other groups gather as they complete their sections of the Wikipedia article and make sure they adhere to a single format. Also, I will assist my group as needed and ensure that all of the current and new content in the article is sufficiently cited.

I am currently going through the citations now and will use the following format for all of the current and new sources added: Author’s Last Name, Author’s First Name. (Publication Year). “Document Title”. Publisher’s Name. Volume Number (Edition Number). ISBN or DOI number.