User:Gzlor/sandbox

Article Evaluation : Capital and Income Breeders

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The visuals for birds were not explained enough and made it more confusing to understand the different definitions of capital and income breeders.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, Yes.
 * 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?
 * All references were scientific articles
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * None of the information was out of date but they could have linked more wikipages to some of the terms like copepods.
 * 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?
 * There are no conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of the WikiProject Birds and have been rated as Start-Class and Mid-importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In the pinnipeds section, it was discussed differently than in class. In class, we talked more about forage behaviors in response to this characteristic and also how it affected body mass and pups. The wiki page focused more on the energetic cost.

Discussion

 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * Blogs and press are notorious for being biased. For this reason, they are not reliable source of information.
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * Company websites are often managed by their PAID workers and therefore, will be biased. Any information on their website is also only up with their permission meaning that they can remove bad reviews and only show the good ones.
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * Copyright is using someone's else work without permission such as songs, digital artwork, etc that they could be earning money for but you used for free. Plagiarism is copyright but claiming it as your original work.
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
 * You can use an free website to run a plagiarism check. You must also cite any fact etc that you saw or read. To avoid paraphrasing it, one can use in-text citation which introduces the author and his findings (e.g. "Robinson et al. (2012) found in their research....")
 * Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * Content gap is missing information. Some possible ways to identify them is through reading the article and checking to see if it is a good article with a symbol. It means that it is updated and a lot of content has been added so it might have any content gaps. If it is not a good article, then there are content gaps.
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * Biased editors will focus only on their take on the topic and not included cited sources of the other view. To remedy that, it is great to have multiple editors and remain unbiased by including all views in the page.
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * It is best that editors have previous edits on wikipedia and are active. It would also be best if they have some background in the topic like Marine Mammal students editing marine mammal wikipedias.
 * What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
 * Unbiased on wikipedia is to present all the facts without trying to sway the audience in one direction. Bias is more just one view on the topic and no knowledge of the other.
 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * Neutrality is great for Wikipedia because it will somewhat help ensure that all information is available and it presents all sides to the topic.
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * Wikipedia relies on the editors. Readers would have to trust the the editors did read the research article correctly and is giving correct information from the cited source. This is not always the case, but readers wouldn't know unless they read the sources themselves.
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * This excludes interviews and websites. This can attribute to making it harder to find a source to cite. For example, you would have to go through journals but their published articles are not always free.
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
 * 100 years ago, their content and contributors will be lacking knowledge. Their contributors would also be more biased because of lack of knowledge. 100 years from now, Wikipedia wouldn't exist. The world will be completely ran by robots. Why edit and look up information on Wikipedia when it can automatically programmed into your brain with the touch of a finger??

Steller Sea Lion Draft
Diving Behavior

Conservation Efforts

Recent studies

Peer-review: Weddell seal

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything presented is relevant to the Weddell seal.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is not really a "viewpoint" on this topic but all areas are covered.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * There could be more citations in the diet and predation section but all sources so far are from journals.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * No, No.