User:JacobFearon/sandbox

June 28: I see your published edits! Great job!

From Dr. Hildebrandt: Really nice job with this, Jacob. I wonder: that 1990/1993 book--was it re-issued? That can happen if it is very popular or a bestseller, for example.

Assignment 17

'''1. What stub did you choose? Why did you choose this one? Copy and past the URL link into your Sandbox:''' Chremonidean War, have a general interest in military history and the history of Ancient Greece but know little of both, Chremonidean War - Wikipedia

2. How do you know that it's a stub: Identify where on the page that you know that this is a stub: at the bottom of the page, under a link called “military history” it is listed as a stub twice, once for the history of Ancient Greece and again for European military sections

'''3. What are some missing or under-developed parts of this stub? A good way to determine this is to compare your stub to a more developed article on the same topic and category. So for example, if you chose a stub-article on a horror novel, look for another Wikipedia article on another horror novel that is more fully developed. What is missing on your stub page in comparison? You should devote 4-5 sentences to answering this question:''' Many individual wars are implied but not mentioned be the text. Mentioned that the war could have started a year earlier than listed, no confirmation. Several Greek/Egyptian commanders are mentioned, but only one Macedonian commander. It seems unlikely that a war for an area as large as all of Athens and Sparta, along with their accompanying territories, would be fought for by one commander, especially since this seems to be more a rebellion than a war. Related to that point, it is made unclear that this is a rebellion, when it is being fought to free Greek city-states from the control of a power that already has proper claim over them.

'''4. In particular, locate the "References" section of the stub. What, if anything, is listed in the references? If the references are hyperlinked, do the links still work?:' One reference listed, to an online book called Alexander to Actium : the historical evolution of the Hellenistic age'', which was written by a Peter Green in 1990. Source is archive.org, and the link works properly. (Side point: the stub seems to list this book as being published in 1993, the website linked to says 1990)

5. And, when you compare this stub to a well developed article of the same category type, what sections of the overall article are present, and what are missing?: The complete articles have several sections detailing individual sections of the campaign in question. Overview lists starting manpower of both sides and casualties, several commanders of note from both sides, in depth break down of the root causes for the conflict, separate battles and certain weaknesses of one side or another that helped or hurt them. The stubs greatest weakness is that there isn’t a play-by-play of what happened in this war, so there is only a poor idea of what this war was and why it happened (compared the stub to the First Messenian War article).

Assignment 18

·        Chremonidean War - Wikipedia

·        Dutch West Indies campaign - Wikipedia

·        Captain General Royal Marines - Wikipedia

Assignment 19

FIRST: Pick any one of the 3 stub articles that you chose last time.

Liquid armor

'''SECOND: Can you find a guide that connects to the topic of the stub you are working with (look back to the block with discussion on "Guides")? If so, take a moment to open that guide and find out what types of sources are okay, and what types are off limits. Please spend 1-2 sentences in your Sandbox identifying which, if any, guides are appropriate for this stub article.'''

Most applicable guide would be Science Communication. Articles that have been checked by third parties are ideal.

'''THIRD: Let's visit your stub. What exactly is missing? Again, compare your stub to the guide that connects most closely to your topic. Also, compare your stub/underdeveloped page to one on a similar topic that is more developed. What sections are missing? What do you think you can contribute? In 2-3 sentences, what is missing in your chosen stub article compared to a more fully fleshed out article on a similar topic?'''

The goal of the foundations conducting this research is not made clear. some information is redundant, having been stated already only a paragraph ago.

'''FOURTH: Now, let's go to the Lovejoy Library journal/trade magazine/newspaper databases. I'd like each of you to spend some time identifying and actually getting your hands on an appropriate source that you think brings something to you stub. Enter the bibliographic information from at least one source that is connected to your chosen stub article, in your Sandbox.'''

(July 26, 2010 Monday). Liquid body armor. Army Times. https://advance-lexis-com.libproxy.siue.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:804F-WDG1-2PYR-V3R0-00000-00&context=1516831. Mentions reasons for researching this tech, as well as its advantages over more well known armor types.

Assignment 20

Source 1: "Liquid body armor". Army Times, July 26, 2010 Monday. advance-lexis-com.libproxy.siue.edu/api/document?collection=news&id= urn:contentItem:804F-WDG1-2PYR-V3R0-00000-00&context=1516831. Accessed June 24, 2021. mentioned previously. main advantage over preceding article is that it is more neutral in tone.

Source 2: Bowman, Tom. “Special Ops Envisions 'Iron Man'-Like Suit To Protect Troops.” NPR, NPR, 5 Aug. 2013, www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/08/05/209241687/special-ops-envisions-iron-man-like-suit-to-protect-troops. interview with some of the people involved in the creation of liquid armor. more biased tone than the first source, but what is said here lines up with what is said in that article, so bias is easy to cut out.

Assignment 21

Blue crayfish stub. starts with word-for-word plagiarism of another site. the site planetfish.org has an article advertising their crayfish. said article (planetfish.org/blue-crayfish/) has a sentence in it that is the same as what the blue crayfish wiki article starts with, word for word- save changing U.S. to United states. Article itself doesn't belong on wiki as a source, but is useful to prove that plagiarism has taken place.

Second article is from aquariumbreeder.com (Blue Crayfish – Detailed Guide: Care, Diet, and Breeding - Shrimp and Snail Breeder (aquariumbreeder.com)). Has several sources, and shows concern for the process behind caring for crayfish more than selling them. Info on crayfishes biology useful for wiki article.

Assignment 22


 * 1) Done
 * 2) want to add a small section about the limitations stopping this tech form being used, which would need to be it's own article. also want to talk about why this tech was researched.
 * 3) For the Blue Crayfish article, I would like to mark the opening sentence as plagiarism.

In the Liquid Armor article, I would like to add a section about the flaws in the current versions of the armor. draft follows

Limitations
Liquid armor has several limitations that are currently preventing it from being used. MIT Professor Gareth McKinley reports that, for liquid armor to be used today, the soldiers in question would need an external hydraulic system to keep them functioning. Additionally, the designs proposed by MIT feature robotic enhancements that would need large external power sources. The lack of a proper power source in particular is a limiting issue for the design.

I would also like to add some information to the synopsis about the origin of the design.

Liquid armor was initially presented as a way to increase the survivability of soldiers in high risk roles while retaining their mobility, as reported by NPR in an interview with MIT professors and a U.S. admiral.