User:Lchollingsworth/sandbox

Below is the original work from the article-
Desktop computer[edit]

Main article: Desktop computer

A Dell OptiPlex desktop computer

Prior to the widespread usage of PCs, a computer that could fit on a desk was remarkably small, leading to the "desktop" nomenclature. More recently, the phrase usually indicates a particular style of computer case. Desktop computers come in a variety of styles ranging from large vertical tower cases to small models which can be tucked behind an LCD monitor. In this sense, the term "desktop" refers specifically to a horizontally oriented case, usually intended to have the display screen placed on top to save desk space. Most desktop computers have an external display screen and an external keyboard, which are typically plugged into the computer case.

This is the rewritten work, the 2nd paragraph- (I added links in the part I rewrote)
Desktop computer[edit]

Main article: Desktop computer

A Dell OptiPlex desktop computer

Prior to the widespread usage of PCs, a computer that could fit on a desk was remarkably small, leading to the "desktop" nomenclature. More recently, the phrase usually indicates a particular style of computer case. Desktop computers come in a variety of styles ranging from large vertical tower cases to small models which can be tucked behind an LCD monitor.

The term "desktop" typically refers to a computer with a vertically aligned computer case that holds the systems hardware components such as the motherboard, processor chip, other internal operating parts. Desktop computers have an external monitor with a display screen and an external keyboard, which are plugged into USB ports on the back of the computer case. Desktop computers are popular for home and business computing applications as they allow the user to have multiple monitors, allowing them to perform work on each one simultaneously.

Week 8 & 9- Continuing article edits and improvements for Personal Computer
This week I chose to work on something that was identified in Editing Wikipedia as suggested from the coursework this week at Wikiedu.org. A checklist for Wikipedia articles on page 15 suggest on one line to make links between Wikipedia articles to the one I am working on improving. I did this by linking 4 different Wikipedia articles to the Personal Computer article. First I linked the articles, History of Computing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing and- Firmware- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware, then I linked the articles, Mobile Computing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_computing, and, Stan Frankel- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Frankel.

Week 7- Continuing article edits and improvements for Personal Computer
This week I added in two references to give some reliability to the manufacturer supported software mentioned, and for the end-user software programs mentioned in the Personal Computer article. See below-

Many personal computer users no longer need to write their own programs to make any use of a personal computer, although end-user programming is still feasible. This contrasts with mobile systems, where software is often only available through a manufacturer-supported channel, and end-user program development may be discouraged by lack of support by the manufacturer.

Improvements/edits
I changed the following to my Personal Computer article improvements today-

It did read- notice the bold underlined print-

 Most  computers today are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies

It now reads better-

A large number of computers today are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

This is how it looks in the article-

Processor
The central processing unit (CPU) is a part of a computer that executes instructions of a software program. In newer PCs, the CPU contains over a million transistors in one integrated circuit chip called the microprocessor. In most cases, the processor plugs directly into the motherboard. The processor chip may have a heat sink and a fan attached for cooling. A large number of computers today are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

Week 6- Expanding the draft of a Wikipedia article
== This is a summary of the work I performed on expanding the Wikipedia article "Personal Computer". These are my final edits to this article, see Week 5 summary for explanation of proposed edits- == Week 5 summary/proposed edits- The dialogue box for this article mentions that it needs additional citations for verification. My plan is to review the article and post any additional citations required in their appropriate place. In particular I will concentrate on the Applications section as it is in dire need of citations that go to reliable sources. The article also requires some reorganization. On the talk page for this article the to-do- list mentions that it needs the x86-compatible microprocessor material in the Processor section to be reviewed for accuracy, and to remove the inappropriate text included. I will review this section and double check the references for reliability and possibly remove what is not applicable to the articles topic.

Week 6 edits-

Wikipedia article- Personal Computer

6Th paragraph under the History section- edits in yellow,

I added a reliable reference for a reliable x86 definition here- (see bold print in paragraph below)

By the early 1970s, people in academic or research institutions had the opportunity for single-person use of a computer system in interactive mode for extended durations, although these systems would still have been too expensive to be owned by a single person. Early personal computers—generally called microcomputers—were often sold in a kit form and in limited volumes, and were of interest mostly to hobbyists and technicians. Minimal programming was done with toggle switches to enter instructions, and output was provided by front panel lamps. Practical use required adding peripherals such as keyboards, computer displays, disk drives, and printers. Micral N was the earliest commercial, non-kit microcomputer based on a microprocessor, the Intel 8008. It was built starting in 1972, and few hundred units were sold. This had been preceded by the Datapoint 2200 in 1970, for which the Intel 8008 had been commissioned, though not accepted for use. The CPU design implemented in the Datapoint 2200 became the basis for x86 architecture[1] used in the original IBM PC and its descendants.[2]

This is the reference-

''Baumann, A. (2017). Hardware is the new Software. Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), 132-137. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf ''

Next, I re-wrote this section, so it did not sound like it was selling products for IBM and Apple-

The original said-

IBM PC compatible computers use an x86-compatible microprocessor, manufactured by Intel, AMD, VIA Technologies or Transmeta. Apple Macintosh computers were initially built with the Motorola 680x0 family of processors, then switched to the PowerPC series; in 2006, they switched to x86-compatible processors made by Intel.

My unbiased, non-promotional re-written version-

Most computers today are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

Here is the Wikipedia version from the website-

Original version- (see bold print in paragraph below)

Processor

The central processing unit (CPU) is a part of a computer that executes instructions of a software program. In newer PCs, the CPU contains over a million transistors in one integrated circuit chip called the microprocessor. In most cases, the processor plugs directly into the motherboard. The processor chip may have a heat sink and a fan attached for cooling. '''IBM PC compatible computers use an x86-compatible microprocessor, manufactured by Intel, AMD, VIA Technologies or Transmeta. Apple Macintosh computers were initially built with the Motorola 680x0 family of processors, then switched to the PowerPC series; in 2006, they switched to x86-compatible processors made by Intel.'''

My re-written version- (see bold print in paragraph below)

The central processing unit (CPU) is a part of a computer that executes instructions of a software program. In newer PCs, the CPU contains over a million transistors in one integrated circuit chip called the microprocessor. In most cases, the processor plugs directly into the motherboard. The processor chip may have a heat sink and a fan attached for cooling. Most computers today[1] are suited to run an x86-compatible microprocessor[2] manufactured by Intel, AMD, or VIA Technologies.

References added/used

''Baumann, A. (2017). Hardware is the new Software. Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), 132-137. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf ''

''Weidendorfer J. (2011) Intel Core Microarchitecture, x86 Processor Family. In: Padua D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing. Springer, Boston, MA''

Article chosen for evaluation and improvements- Personal computer
The dialogue box for this article mentions that it needs additional citations for verification. My plan is to review the article and post any additional citations required in their appropriate place. In particular I will concentrate on the Applications section as it is in dire need of citations that go to reliable sources. The article also requires some reorganization. On the talk page for this article the to-do- list mentions that it needs the x86-compatible microprocessor material in the Processor section to be reviewed for accuracy, and to remove the inappropriate text included. I will review this section and double check the references for reliability and possibly remove what is not applicable to the articles topic.

Bibliography I will use for article improvements

 * 1) HSIAO, H., et al. "A simulation toolkit for x86-compatible processors, Xism." International Journal of High Speed Computing, vol. 10, no. 04, 1999, pp. 427-446, eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=4&sid=a12d6134-3a1b-483d-b826-3236019ac060%40sessionmgr4007. Accessed 4 Apr. 2018.

2. Anjum, M., & Budgen, D. (2017). An investigation of modelling and design for software service applications. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0176936. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176936

3. Baumann, A. (2016). Hardware is the new software. Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, 16, 1-8. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-       content/uploads/2017/05/baumann-hotos17.pdf

4. Weik M.H. (2000) software system. In: Computer Science and Communications Dictionary. Springer, Boston, MA

5. Kinser, J. M. (2015). Kinematic labs with mobile devices. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

6. Garrison, B. (1999). Microsoft Office 2000 software suite. World Communication, 28(4), 105-108. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=4e359906-f36c-4a94-ad9d-4da1a6151d2b%40sessionmgr4006

Week 4- Improving article topics
I started this assignment by taking several paths and could not find articles that met the requirements I was looking for, information to work with either good or bad, sufficient discussions on the talk page to help me see possible areas of improvement and what others felt the page required, and a connection to the course.

After reviewing course related articles on New Media, digital literacy, web literacy, and copyright issues I decided on the following about plagiarism and copyright issues trying to follow a path from the exercise this week.

1.      Article one, Plagiarism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
This article got my attention because of its Wikipedia rating, a class B, implying that the article is almost complete and requires some work to reach the good article standards classification. From here I reviewed what good article criteria is according to Wikipedia to see if I could make improvements in this area. I then clicked the [show] feature on the quality assessment table next to the rating and found that the article could use more references that connect the topic with other issues like intellectual property and copyright violations.

Moving forward I reviewed the talk page and found issues discussed were on the definition of plagiarism given in the article, confusions were made between plagiarism and copyright infringement, some reference source issues, sections were removed and edited to read better, and that the article has actually been copied word for word and posted on another site, showing a good ironic use of the topic.

My evaluation to improve this article requires more references with academic bound in text cites that connect it with other types of individual property violations, a distinction between topics that it is confused with, multiple reorganizing efforts to give it more clarity for the reader, and an overall information review of the material to ensure its accuracy as there seems to be issues in this area also.

List of improvements:

I. Lead section

a.     First line- this definition needs to be rewritten and referenced properly.

b.     The second sentence should be integrated with the first.

i.     From here the lead section should be expanded on just a little for clarity about the topic.

c.     The last paragraph should be moved to the Legal aspects section.

II. Etymology

a.     Move this section to the lead section, solving the lack of information issue.

III. Legal aspects

a.     This section is out of place, should be moved to the end of the article.

b.     Second paragraph needs material cited.

c.     Third paragraph contains an original idea.

IV. In academia and journalism

a.     First paragraph needs material cited, two instances.

b.     Second paragraph needs material cited.

c.     Under common forms of student plagiarism, cited material required.

i.     Ordered list needs a cite.

d.    Under sanctions for student plagiarism, cited material required.

e.     Criminal and negative behavior by diploma mills section needs more referenced content.

f.      Factors influencing student’s decision to plagiarize contains original content.

g.     Methods of preventing plagiarism, first ordered list has no cite.

h.    Journalism section too short, needs more referenced content.

i.       A contested definition section has content gap issues.

j.       Code of ethics section requires cited material.

k.     Factors that justify reuse section, ordered list needs cited reference.

l.       The in other contexts section should be re-titled to read- To conclude.

2.     Article two, Copyright infringement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
I chose this article because it connects to the course work this week and because it relates to the plagiarism article. The article has a start-class rating on Wikipedia meaning that it is incomplete and needs to be developed more, giving me room to work with on ways to improve it. The talk page for the article has just four discussions currently posted. The issues mentioned are on section removals, missing and incorrect information, and external link issues.

A more substantial review of the article showed the posts on the discussion to be true. To improve the article, I would suggest that the information requiring citations were brought up-to-date, and several sections need to either be removed or rewritten for clarity and given the proper academically based references (the sections on freebooting and music industry estimates fit this category). The article has plenty of information for the reader to review, yet it seems to ramble on in places leaving out what is important by basing the referenced material on what others have said and what can be found in copyright laws of the US. This is a redundant issue with the article, the citations going to outside sources on the laws centered on copyright infringement should be shortened and moved to one section. I would also give the article a review of the reference material to ensure its accuracy since these issues were found.

List of improvements:

I.           Lead section

a.     Appears to contain original content matter that should be removed, cited, or rewritten.

b.     Last paragraph should be moved to the economic impact section.

II. Terminology

a.     Starts with definitions of piracy and theft, should start with definition of the topic.

b.     Piracy section requires cited material.

c.     Theft section requires cited material.

i.     These two sections could be combined and shortened.

d.    Freebooting section is irrelevant to topic, should be removed.

e.     Motivation section requires cited material.

i.     Has content gaps that need repaired.

f.      Developing world contains original thought, remove this.

g.     Motivations due to censorship section should be moved up under motivation section as a paragraph not as a sub-heading.

h.    Criminal law section requires cited material.

i.     Also contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

i.       Legality of downloading section has quite a bit of uncited material to repair.

j.       Legality of uploading section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

k.     Litigation and legislation concerning intermediaries section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

l.       Peer-to-peer issues section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

m.  Non-infringing types of works section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

n.    Preventative measures section, ordered list needs a cite.

o.     Legal section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

p.     Music industry elements section needs expanding.

q.     Criticism of industry estimates contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

r.      Economic impact of infringement in emerging markets section contains original thought that needs cited reference material to back it up.

As noted in this list, the article requires an abundance of original material that needs cited reference material to back it up, numerous broken link repairs, and areas that require content matter adjustments and rewriting for reader clarity.

3.     Article three, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
This article was chosen because it relates to the copyright infringement article, because it is course related, and because it currently has a C-class Wikipedia rating yet used to be a featured article candidate, this intrigued me. I found out the reason for this is because the article has content gaps in the material, another reason for choosing this article.

Viewing the talk page for the article I observed discussions that mentioned poor writing issues, unorganized thought patterns resulting in reduced writing clarity, concerns about author assumptions and original ideas, and problems with external links. My suggestions for improvements to the article are to first make a complete edit for wording issues that bring about clarity and content gap issues. The article reads like a book report someone wrote for a class project. A lot of what is written is repeated in other areas of the article just stated another way. The article details a lot of information on fair use practices and laws in the US yet the section providing information about the topic from other countries needs more referenced material. The article will also require content areas that have opinion based subject matter to be either removed or rewritten to comply with Wikipedia’s policies for neutral content.

List of improvements:

I.           Lead section

a.     Very long, needs content editing.

b.     The second paragraph should be placed under the History section.

c.     The third paragraph should be moved to the U.S. fair use procedure and practice section.

d.    The History section will require a rewrite for clarity between the topics origination and how the term should be used.

II. U.S. fair use factors section

a.     The ordered list showing factors that determine fair use needs a cite.

b.     The explanation from the George Washington decision labeled [A] requires a cite.

c.     This section also some original thoughts like the last sentence that need editing out.

III. Section 1- Purpose and character of the use

a.     First sentence requires a cite and rewording of an original thought.

b.     Blanch v. Koons requires reference material.

i.     This content also requires a rewrite, the author refers to Koons in two different genders here, first as a female described as she then as male with the word his.

c.     This section also has original content that needs to be removed, the author gives an opinion in the last sentence.

IV. Section 2- nature of the copyrighted work

a.     Last paragraph, last sentence requires a cite.

b.     Section needs more academic based references.

V.           Section 3- Amount and substantiality

a.     Contains original thoughts to be edited.

b.     Requires material to be cited in both paragraph one and two.

VI. Section 4- Effect upon work’s value

a.     Title needs work, should be- Value on original work

b.     Paragraph one requires cited material.

c.     Last sentence requires cited material.

VII. Other factors

a.     This entire section should either be removed or re-written with the correct cited reference material placed with it.

VIII. U.S. fair use procedure and practice section

a.     This section is a jumble of poorly written material that has content gaps, original thoughts, and no use of cited material to back the subject matter up as it should. I suggest a complete rewrite of this section.

From here, starting with Fair use in particular areas, the author has written some sections that discuss the topic in ways that seem somewhat irrelevant to the what the article is about. While some of the examples provided are about fair use, they do not follow the theme of the article, defining fair use as a doctrine. Some of the examples should be removed, some should be shortened, they all need work with more citations and proven reference material, i.e., Righthaven v. Hoehn. The section on international fair use provides a lot of information on fair use practices and laws in the US yet offers little information about the topic from other countries, this also needs cited material. Finally, the last section on fair use week is totally out of place with this article and should be removed entirely.

Evaluating articles on Wikipedia
Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, can be utilized in many languages. Articles on the site are developed by multiple authors one edit at a time. Article quality is addressed with key elements that show clarity, depth, neutrality, and reliability. Utilizing the talk page feature an author can evaluate, edit, or evolve an article. The Writing in Digital Environments class assignment this week requires the evaluation of a Wikipedia article.

The article, Gamification of Learning, will provide material for this assignment. This article has a vast amount of information to work with and seems to fit each category defined in the course handout Evaluating Wikipedia. However, I found some issues that require attention. The lead section summarizes key points that develop the article but has questionable original research included. The balance of material is not well placed with sections arranged out of order. The article begins by providing a definition of the subject that leads into other sections before presenting any history on the topic. For instance, the history section should come first to show how the theory came into practice in educational circles, thus allowing the benefits section to be displayed next to give the reader a view of what opportunities can be provided. This should then be followed by the facilitated game learning elements section explaining how the learning module works. The application section should come next followed by the effectiveness section to show how the theory can be employed to influence learning experiences when the theory is applied in practice. The corporate learning section details an application and should be integrated into the application section. The article should then conclude with the criticism section, although I would like to see the title changed to arguments.

The working links in the article all go to reliable sources, yet the article has several broken links and other questionable research issues that require editing. I viewed the history of the article and found it was created in February of 2014 and has numerous edits from about twenty different authors. There looks to have been a large amount of editing performed on the citations and the English context of the article, quite a few of the edits are on broken English issues. The reference section is well structured and has operational links leading to external sources.

Issues considered when evaluating this article were, My evaluation of this article is that it could be improved in several ways by reorganizing the sections, repairing the broken links, and removing the questionable research issues. These edits will give the article more clarity and reliability. As for neutrality concerns, the article provides different views of the information with unbiased language.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, the material is relevant, yet the organizational structure distracted me.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is neutral, it displays varying ideas, applications, and theories on the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?
 * The history of the topic should include information.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Sources in the article support claims, however there are broken links that require attention.
 * 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?
 * The facts are referenced from reliable sources that appear to be unbiased.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * A few referenced items are out of date going back to 1922, yet most are current from the 2012 forward.
 * 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?
 * Conversations on article edits concerning broken links, the use of improper broken English, and rearrangement of the content matter.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-class on the quality scale, and Mid-importance on the importance scale. It is in the scope of WikiProject video games and WikiProject education.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The topic is discussed as it was in the editing and evaluating portion of class.

Master Homework Document for Week Three
Larry Hollingsworth

NMAC 5108

March 25, 2018

Week Three Master Homework Document

Evaluating articles on Wikipedia blog post
Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, can be utilized in many languages. Articles on the site are developed by multiple authors one edit at a time. Article quality is addressed with key elements that show clarity, depth, neutrality, and reliability. Utilizing the talk page feature an author can evaluate, edit, or evolve an article. The Writing in Digital Environments class assignment this week requires the evaluation of a Wikipedia article.

The article, Gamification of Learning, will provide material for this assignment. This article has a vast amount of information to work with and seems to fit each category defined in the course handout Evaluating Wikipedia. However, I found some issues that require attention. The lead section summarizes key points that develop the article but has questionable original research included. The balance of material is not well placed with sections arranged out of order. The article begins by providing a definition of the subject that leads into other sections before presenting any history on the topic. For instance, the history section should come first to show how the theory came into practice in educational circles, thus allowing the benefits section to be displayed next to give the reader a view of what opportunities can be provided. This should then be followed by the facilitated game learning elements section explaining how the learning module works. The application section should come next followed by the effectiveness section to show how the theory can be employed to influence learning experiences when the theory is applied in practice. The corporate learning section details an application and should be integrated into the application section. The article should then conclude with the criticism section, although I would like to see the title changed to arguments.

The working links in the article all go to reliable sources, yet the article has several broken links and other questionable research issues that require editing. I viewed the history of the article and found it was created in February of 2014 and has numerous edits from about twenty different authors. There looks to have been a large amount of editing performed on the citations and the English context of the article, quite a few of the edits are on broken English issues. The reference section is well structured and has operational links leading to external sources.

My evaluation of this article is that it could be improved in several ways by reorganizing the sections, repairing the broken links, and removing the questionable research issues. These edits will give the article more clarity and reliability. As for neutrality concerns, the article provides different views of the information with unbiased language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification_of_learning

Tags: Wikipedia, Gamification, Writing DM, Learning theories, WikiEval

Identifying content gaps in writing discussion
Content gap occurs when there are vague spots in the writing, leaving the reader confused about the subject matter. In “Writing and editing for digital media”, Carroll suggests ways to identify content gaps such as proofreading the work to find inconsistencies (63), and evaluating the materials organizational structure for the impact it will have on the reader (90). Content gap can happen when a writer is not focused on their work, or when the writer does not organize the material so that the reader can identify with the topic clearly. Remedies for content gap issues are to identify unclear content areas, redefine the topic, include more reliable article links, assess any current linked articles, and evaluate subject matter.

Unless restrictions are in place it does not matter who writes to Wikipedia. Unbiased means Wikipedia authors must regard article content unobjectively. My definition of unbiased is to be unopinionated about something.

Copy-edit an article exercise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_most_distant_from_the_Sun_in_2015

Original article-
This list of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in December 2015 is a list of bodies orbiting the Sun by their approximate heliocentric distance from the Sun in December 2015 (as opposed to those with the greatest calculated aphelion in their orbit), and discovered by that year. An exception is made for objects announced later but found in 2015, but other objects would be reported elsewhere. The meaning of in 2015 for this list, means most distant objects known in that year of that year without precovered objects; e.g. a historical list.

The object publicly known as V774104 was announced in November 2015. It was heralded by many news outlets as "the most distant Solar System object", surpassing Eris by close to 7 AU (not counting space probes and long-period comets). As of 2018, V774104 is now suspected of being closer than Eris.[1] 2015 TH367 was announced in 2018, but first discovered in October 2015.

Another very distant body is Sedna, discovered in November 2003. Although it takes over 10,000 years to orbit, it will slowly get closer over the next 60 years to its perihelion.[2]

Because all these objects are moving, the list changes significantly over time. In particular, some objects are in-bound and some are out-bound. It is hard to see comets at the longer distances. It is usually their big comas that allow them to be detected more easily when they get heated by the Sun.

Copy-edits-
This list of Solar System objects furthermost from the Sun summarizes planets discovered before December 2015 by their approximate heliocentric orbiting distance (as opposed to those with the greatest calculated aphelion in their orbit). An exception is made for objects announced after 2015 that are reported elsewhere without known pre-covered information; e.g. a historical list.

The planetary object known as V774104, named in November 2015, surpassed Eris by close to 7 astronomical units (AU), excluding space probes and long-period comets. However, as of 2018, V774104 is believed to be closer than Eris.[1]

First observed in October 2015, with an approximate heliocentric orbiting distance greater than 50 AU, 2015 TH367 was not proclaimed until 2018. Discovered in November 2003 another very distant body is Sedna. Though it takes over 10,000 years to orbit the sun, its perihelion will slowly move closer over the next 60 years.[2]

Because these objects are moving, the list changes significantly over time. Some objects are in-bound, and some are out-bound. Comets are harder to observe at the longer distances, however their large comas allow them to be detected more easily when they get heated by the Sun.

User:Lchollingsworth/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Lchollingsworth

Contents
·        1Article Evaluation

o    1.1Evaluating articles on Wikipedia

·        2Week 3-Add to an article exercise

·        3Gamification of learning: Revision history

o    3.1Week 3-Citation Hunt exercise

·        4Cambria, California: Revision history

Article evaluation exercise
Evaluating articles on Wikipedia

Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, can be utilized in many languages. Articles on the site are developed by multiple authors one edit at a time. Article quality is addressed with key elements that show clarity, depth, neutrality, and reliability. Utilizing the talk page feature an author can evaluate, edit, or evolve an article. The Writing in Digital Environments class assignment this week requires the evaluation of a Wikipedia article.

The article, Gamification of Learning, will provide material for this assignment. This article has a vast amount of information to work with and seems to fit each category defined in the course handout Evaluating Wikipedia. However, I found some issues that require attention. The lead section summarizes key points that develop the article but has questionable original research included. The balance of material is not well placed with sections arranged out of order. The article begins by providing a definition of the subject that leads into other sections before presenting any history on the topic. For instance, the history section should come first to show how the theory came into practice in educational circles, thus allowing the benefits section to be displayed next to give the reader a view of what opportunities can be provided. This should then be followed by the facilitated game learning elements section explaining how the learning module works. The application section should come next followed by the effectiveness section to show how the theory can be employed to influence learning experiences when the theory is applied in practice. The corporate learning section details an application and should be integrated into the application section. The article should then conclude with the criticism section, although I would like to see the title changed to arguments.

The working links in the article all go to reliable sources, yet the article has several broken links and other questionable research issues that require editing. I viewed the history of the article and found it was created in February of 2014 and has numerous edits from about twenty different authors. There looks to have been a large amount of editing performed on the citations and the English context of the article, quite a few of the edits are on broken English issues. The reference section is well structured and has operational links leading to external sources.

Issues considered when evaluating this article were,

·        Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

·        Yes, the material is relevant, yet the organizational structure distracted me.

·        Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

·        Yes, the article is neutral, it displays varying ideas, applications, and theories on the topic.

·        Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?

·        The history of the topic should include information.

·        Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

·        Sources in the article support claims, however there are broken links that require attention.

·        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?

·        The facts are referenced from reliable sources that appear to be unbiased.

·        Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

·        A few referenced items are out of date going back to 1922, yet most are current from the 2012 forward.

·        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?

·        Conversations on article edits concerning broken links, the use of improper broken English, and rearrangement of the content matter.

·        How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

·        The article is rated as C-class on the quality scale, and Mid-importance on the importance scale. It is in the scope of WikiProject video games and WikiProject education.

·        How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

·        The topic is discussed as it was in the editing and evaluating portion of class.

My evaluation of this article is that it could be improved in several ways by reorganizing the sections, repairing the broken links, and removing the questionable research issues. These edits will give the article more clarity and reliability. As for neutrality concerns, the article provides different views of the information with unbiased language.

Week 3-Add to an article exercise
I added an edit line to the Gamification of Learning article-

Gamification of learning: Revision history[edit]

·        (cur | prev) 18:14, 25 March 2018‎ Lchollingsworth (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (38,493 bytes) (+185)‎. . (Inserted extra definition of Gamification types) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

Week 3-Citation Hunt exercise
Completed Citation Hunt exercise

Cambria, California: Revision history[edit]

·        (cur | prev) 18:32, 25 March 2018‎ Lchollingsworth (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,669 bytes) (-3)‎. . (Added citation) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

Week 3- Copy-edit exercise
Made copy-edit changes to article

List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2015: Revision history

·        (cur | prev) 21:12, 25 March 2018‎ Lchollingsworth (talk | contribs)‎. . (14,344 bytes) (-337)‎. . (Changes made-copyediting) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)