User:Korochan98/sandbox

The Wikipedia article “Schengen Area” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area) provides strong, deep coverage of the main topic, but reveals inconsistencies in clarity of language, citations, and contributor agreements, which weaken this article as an encyclopaedic text.

The article “Schengen Area” starts with a neutral definition of the Schengen Area, followed by the relevant participants of the Schengen Area in great detail. This introduction successfully presents a summary of the article without using any subjective terminology. Furthermore, a large, clear graphic accompanies the introductory section to help the reader visually understand the Schengen Area. A large number of statistics, including the population and the geographic area of the Schengen Area, are provided. While these characteristics present strengths for this article, this introductory portion also carries various flaws. Notably, there seems to be a lack of revision in the sentence structures in most of the introduction. The lead section has successfully maintained its neutrality in language, it is written cautiously to the point where ambiguity is an issue. This is noticeable when the lead section describes the status of microstates in the Schengen Area. “Three European microstates...can be considered de facto participants.” Writing with phrases like “can be considered” increases the article’s ambiguity and ultimately weakens the text. Instead of acting as a source of unbiased information, it becomes a source of unbiased, unsure statements.

The “Schengen Area” article has citation flaws, which could create confusion for readers. Overall, the article displays a thorough coverage of the information about the Schengen Area. However, some citations at the bottom of the page need further revisions, as they lead to links that no longer provide any information. For example, the article discusses the state of the Faroe Islands and Greenland in the Schengen Agreement under the heading "Territories of Schengen states outside the Area." However, the citation that is associated with this last section should be noted. Under citation 64, the following link- http://www.greenland.com/en/content/english/tourist/travel_info/passport_and_visa_regulations/ - leads to a notice that the page has no content available. This citation comes from a Greenland tourism website, and was also retrieved in 2009. While the status on the entry into the Faroe Islands and Greenland has not changed for citizens of countries in the Schengen Agreement, it could be improved if it were revised with the official information listed on the website provided by the government of Greenland ( http://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/About-government-of-greenland/About-Greenland/Coming-to-Greenland/Schengen-and-Tourists ) and subsequently cited with a working link. Another invalid link is found in the first section, under citation 9. Because this link does not work, there is no text to back up the claim that three European micro states are also part of the Schengen Area. Additionally, there are citations to documents in foreign languages other than English (ex. citation 13 and 108). While these sources may provide valid, accurate information, it is difficult to assess the reliability of these sources under the English version of the article.

Another equally concerning aspect of the “Schengen Area” article is the lack of consensus and harsh dialogue between Wikipedia contributors on the talk page. The contributors use charged language like “truly dead” and “boring,” suggesting that the “Schengen Area” article is actually a conglomerate of conflicting ideas and unresolved arguments.

The Wikipedia article “Free solo climbing” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_solo_climbing) poses some strengths but reveals more weaknesses, which give it the informality of an article that might be found in a climbing interest magazine.

The article “Free solo climbing” provides a large range of statistics and real examples of climbers and details of their ascents. In a list-like form, climbers are included along with hyperlinks for some of the climbers to Wikipedia articles specific to those climbers. Many accidents are also put in the article, with dates, ages, and locations of the accidents. This presentation of fact after fact does give this article a more objective feel to the reading. However, the excessive inclusion of examples of climbing accidents creates the sense that it might have a subjective goal—to convince that free solo climbing is a thrilling, dangerous activity that is not meant for everyone. Furthermore, these examples reveal greater issues concerning the citations of the article. Many of the examples do not provide their sources anywhere on the page or are untrustworthy sources. For example, the 7th citation is posted only as a link, and when the link is clicked, the viewer is taken to a climbing blog called “All Climbing” where the author writes about a climber and the author’s opinion on the climber’s new techniques. Basing the information off of questionable sources decrease the reliability and formality of the article on free solo climbing.

Not only did the article base its information from opinionated blogs and climbing magazines, the article also makes broad, uncited remarks about the nature of free-soloing. The article notes under “Motivations” that “…inherent risks such as loose rocks or sudden change in weather are always present.” Using words like “always” can pose risks in the verifiability of this information in an encyclopedia. This type of all-or-nothing statement causes the reader to question the neutrality of the writing. By lowering the trust between the article and the reader, a rift is formed between the reader and the article, weakening the Wikipedia article as a source to describe the activity of free-solo climbing.

In the Wikipedia article “Free solo climbing,” one of the most notable weaknesses is the use of subjective terminology to describe the danger of this activity. The way in which the article was written suggests that this type of climbing is beautiful and requires a high degree of skill. Under the section “Motivations,” the author notes “Reasons for free soloing given by high-profile climbers include the simplicity and speed with which one can climb.” “Simplicity” is a subjective term, creating the notion that free solo climbing is a clean, beautiful sport. Personally, this statement made myself wonder if the authors and editors of the article are experienced in this specific type of climbing. Other parts of the Wikipedia article revealed a high degree of subjectivity. One of the sections is titled “Difficult free solo ascents.” Using a word like “difficult” creates questions like “What defines a difficult ascent?” and ultimately distract the reader from the bulk of the information, again lowering the quality of the article as one that is found in an encyclopedia. These kinds of descriptions are acceptable in a climbing magazine, where the readers are not seeking introductory information to the activity, but rather enjoying the enthusiasm of fellow climbing fanatics.

While Wikipedia articles like "Free solo climbing" are highly susceptible to flaws in presentation of information, citations, and subjectivity, these problems can be avoided with a careful attitude and attention to detail. It is essential for articles in an academic setting to provide unbiased, concise information without adopting the tone of a magazine page.