User:Jisbell2/sandbox

Article Evaluation
My article Evaluation is on Cat Senses, and one of the first things I noticed about the article was the abundance of pictures throughout, as well as the number of links used. There were far to many links including one for the word blink and the word tears. The tone of the article was not what would be expected of a Wikipedia article. It used a lot of language that is not appropriate when publishing something that uses concrete facts. A lot of the lines were leading into another one, putting pieces together instead of stating the facts outright. It could be improved by getting rid of some of the flowery and uncertain sounding language and putting in language that sounds a little more certain. Jisbell2 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about Sources and Plagerism

 * 1) Blog posts and Press releases are considered poor sources because they are often not reviewed by experts in whatever subject they are in, as well as they are written by a single person or by a group of people attempting to sway the people who are reading or listening in a certain way very often.
 * 2) You wouldn't want to use a company's website as the main source of information about the company because the website will be fairly focused on gaining good standing with the people reading it, and may not say everything about the website. It will only hold information that may be good for their image.
 * 3) A copyright violation is taking information that belongs to a certain person without the permission of the person who owns the information, even if you give them proper citation. Plagiarism is taking the work of someone else and passing it off as your own, wither meaning to or not.
 * 4) Good techniques to avoid plagiarism is to take notes about what you are reading and write what you have to say based off the notes instead of reading and writing exactly. Another technique is to avoid plagiarism is to change the entire structure of what you are writing, to be sure you don't accidentally copy what you are writing.

Thinking about wikipedia

 * 1) I believe Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is not leaning in a certain way on any subject. You are to tell all sides of any subject so whoever is reading is able to understand and form their own opinions.
 * 2) Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so using it as source may not be a very good way to go. But you can go to the sources for Wikipedia and look through those to see more reliable sources.
 * 3) This excludes things like blogs, interviews, or personal websites. This can make it difficult if you are writing on someone who does not have very many published things about them. This also can be an issue if you are writing on a subject that just hasn't had very many things written on it in general.
 * 4) 100 years ago Wikipedia would not have been able to be edited by anyone. Someone would have had to oversee everything written and it would be much harder to review everything written on it. 100 years from now there will be easier ways to find information on everything, and easier ways to compile all information on a certain subject. It will have to be dedicated people working for what they enjoy.

Cat senses
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_senses&diff=857976287&oldid=857118085

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_senses&diff=857976767&oldid=857976287

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_senses&diff=857977763&oldid=857976767

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_senses&diff=857109177&oldid=857105423

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_senses&diff=857104916&oldid=856770039


 * You need to copyedit three articles... Dr Aaij (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is a content gap

 * 1) A content gap is missing content in an article. Important things that should be in the article aren't. A good way to recognize them is looking through the sources and seeing everything all laid out and seeing what is missed.
 * 2) A content gap may come from an uninformed writer not looking through all the information they can. It can be remedied by doing more in depth research into whatever topic you are writing on.
 * 3) Anyone can write for Wikipedia and the only thing that matters is that whoever is writing tries to make the articles true and tries to write them well.
 * 4) Unbiased on Wikipedia means to only write things that are true and not trying to give more information on a certain part of a subject without swaying in any certain direction. My definition is to not have a preference on either side of what you are writing.

DYK submission

 * article      = The Man Who Came Uptown
 * status       = new
 * hook         = ... that George Pelecanos novel The Man Who Came Uptown is about the redemptive power of books, as well as the choices between right or wrong fallowing Michael Hudson's release from prison fallowing an armed robbery.
 * author       = jisbell2
 * image        =
 * caption   =
 * comment      =
 * reviewed     = <This is my first article, I didn't need to review one.
 * Hey Jisbell2, just go to Template talk:Did you know, scroll down to the nominations section ("To nominate an article"), and plug it in. But your hook is a bit long and not so exciting (yet). How about "...that in George Pelecanos' novel The Man Who Came Uptown, a convicted robber, is redeemed through reading books from the prison library?" Gotta get it done today. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured article evaluation
The Sirens and Ulysses There were really only two people talking on the article, one of which is the author. The other person is the person reviewing it to be a good article. The first issue in the article is some wording in it. The author wrote something pretty confusing, and it was brought up to him so he explained himself and corrected it in his article. A decent part of the talk page is talking about specifics when talking about places and tagging them in the article and its gone back and forth on a decent bit. They also talk a lot about templates in the background section of the article, and what the reviewer likes and does not like. A good bit of the entire review is the two people discussing the specifics of the article but not a lot about the actual content because all in all the content was pretty good in the first place.
 * You may have looked at the GA review? You should have looked at the FA review, Featured article candidates/The Sirens and Ulysses/archive1. Dr Aaij (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, so you got limited points for this, because you didn't look at the right review. Look at the right review--it will help your average, which is dangerous at this time. Also, I'm missing the section for the Vandalism! assignment... Dr Aaij (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post
The Washington post has an article titled Is Wikipedia trustworthy when it comes to science by Tia Ghose. This article talks about how not all articles that are looked at regularly on Wikipedia or are edited regularly can be seen as trustworthy. Controversial articles always seem to have more edits than non-controversial ones, and it is common to have completely untrue facts in it. Overall, the article said that Wikipedia is a good place to start but depending on the day it may say something completely wrong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?utm_term=.5a14bf4c52cb

Fox
Fox's article Named just how accurate is Wikipedia without an author. This starts with showing that peoples opinion of Wikipedia is all over the place. Some people consider it to be a reputable source, while others say it is in no way reputable. While other students say most professors say it will be okay as long as you use caution. It also says the Oxford medical textbook was found to have a large portion of text copied from Wikipedia. It goes in to talk about how the number of articles on Wikipedia has doubled in the past seven years and the number of writers has declined by a fourth. There are a growing number of people being paid to write for Wikipedia and they are banning then as fast as possible. So you must be careful when you are using Wikipedia. https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia

Vandalism

 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lin-Manuel_Miranda&diff=790408854&oldid=790321497 Adding the Hamilton script to Lins page.
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamilton_(musical)&diff=871377943&oldid=871377688 Vandilism on the hamilton page.
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daveed_Diggs&diff=852304843&oldid=851016166 Racist vandalism on Daveed Diggs.


 * OK. You didn't sign it, so I never got the ping. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And the reflective essay? I need to get my grades in. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)