User:LikesPickles/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Harbin hotel fire)
Content

All information is relevant in the article.

Article has up to date info. Last updated 8/29/2018

Entire article is accurately referenced and sourced.

A picture of the fire, building, or even the building after the fire would be indefinitely more exciting than a map screenshot.

Tone

The article has a neutral tone and only speaks of the incident and response in terms of fact.

Sources

All sources are supportive to the article.

Everything in the article is cited by sources.

As far as I can tell (some of the sources are in Mandarin) all sources are good sources.

Talk Page

The talk page has no conversations on it. The article is very new.

The article was a News article.

Impression

My overall impression of the article is that it was short but very factual and strongly supported by its sources.

Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism
Press releases and blog posts are bad sources because they can often push an agenda or certain bias.

A company's website may not be a reliable source for information about that company because they will attempt to push their own agenda and are biased towards themselves.

Copyright is to take someone's words and claim them as your own. Plagiarism is the taking of someone's idea and claiming it as your own. Even changing the wording slightly can lead to plagiarism if the idea or phrase is unoriginal.

A good way to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing is to read many sources and develop a very strong sense of an idea prior to publishing anything to WP.

Thinking About Wikipedia
Neutrality is defined as remaining unbiased and not having opinionative input on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should not be used as a definite source but the sources citing the Wikipedia article will often be reliable sources pertaining to the subject.

Press releases, personal/business websites, and blogs are unreliable sources because of the bias that all of them take on. If cited, it could lead to inaccurate or biased information.

If Wikipedia were around 100 years ago, I feel like there would be far more information on it because people were more "about" preserving the past(present for them) so I think they would have much more history documented. If Wikipedia came about 100 years from now, I feel that not many people would have preserved history and much of history that is being published today, may actually be forgotten and lost.

Engine tuning
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engine_tuning&diff=858178977&oldid=855659734

Gold-Collecting Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold-Collecting_Campaign&diff=prev&oldid=858180124

Obstetrical Forceps
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obstetrical_forceps&diff=prev&oldid=858183026

Honda CBR1000RR
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honda_CBR1000RR&diff=prev&oldid=858183719

Sexual assault in the United States military
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military&diff=858185045&oldid=856186188

2018 Chemnitz stabbing attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Chemnitz_stabbing_attack&diff=prev&oldid=858186956

Ryan Switzer (Chose Random Article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Switzer&diff=868448126&oldid=867965743

Akira Nakai (abandoned for now)
Akira Nakai is a Japanese car tuner that has definitely made a name for himself for the original work he puts his heart and life into. What makes Nakai stand out from other car tuners and modifiers is that Nakai has an apparent passion for Porsche s and has since he began modifying them in the later years of the 1990's. Nakai has a unique way of insuring the client favors the car he modifies for them. He spends time with the client and gets to know them and thinks of what he can do to their car to reflect a part of them. The car being modified goes through an entire transformation and receives a new front bumper, rear bumper, and side skirts. Nakai offers additional options such as new fenders of various wideness, suspension adjustments and smaller aesthetic additions like canards and special rivets. Most of these modifications are a part of what's called a body kit. Each kit built by Nakai's company RAUGH-Welt Begriff/RWB(Rough World Concept) is built to have better form and function. Nakai has admitted that the kits are mostly for an original form but he felt that if function were not improved, the modifications were pointless. This is most likely because Nakai started his tuner career by working for a drift crew called Rough World working on a Trueno AE86. The wheel base of the "RWB" Porsches is often widened to create a wider base for the car, improving function. Nakai has a very original approach to vehicles like no other human and has a passion like no other. His modifying of Porsches is one of the most controversial debates among car enthusiasts but what is so admirable about Akira Nakai and RWB is that he does not listen to critics and strives to get his work that he appreciates so much to the clients that do want it. There are many short video documentaries displaying Nakai's travels, mainly in the United States, where he travels across the world from Japan to work on a Porsche and apply his personal touch. Nakai arrives, meets his client, and wants to immediately begin work and is known for often working through the night. He is teased about how he is fueled by cigarettes and the occasional Stella Artois the work wont stop. has no need for measuring for his modifications because he has so much experience doing it, he can "eye" the entire process.

Evaluation and quality control
Hawkeye7 nominated the Project E article in September of 2018. This article was about the joint operation between the US and UK during the Cold War. The joint project involved the Royal Air Force being provided with nuclear weapons until the British could get sufficient weapons. The Wikipedia community felt like the article should be promoted because of its notability, for I myself found the article important for it elaborates on a little known military joint operation that could have made history entirely different if the operation did not occur. There is a debate about referring to UK as the United Kingdom versus Britain and have concern with calling it by both terms. Other debate is about info in the article itself. Six reviewers were involved in the promotion of the featured article and were involved in the changes made to the original in order to make it featured..

Vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colt_AR-15&diff=843153648&oldid=843153633 (someone did not enjoy learning the history of the Colt AR-15 so they decided to delete it entirely)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=865534139&oldid=865508923 (input of personal bias into article about politics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=865185830&oldid=865116158 (ACCIDENTAL VANDALISM/ User tried to aid in organization by deleting spaces but ended up harming article's organization)

Reliability
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

The article speaks of how Wikipedia reliability is questionable but when compared to Britannica, a highly accurate and very reliable source, was actually a perfect match with true facts with a total of 42 articles analyzed in total. The article also states that similar conventional studies revealed similar results. A study done by the author of the article on LiveScience revealed that there is in fact factual information on WP. For their instance, a band's page had almost a dozen factual errors and even endorsing by companies. The final result is that WP tends to be a very reliable source when referring to academic topics but does not quite meet the standards of what most people would consider reliable if the topic is pop culture based.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/wikipedia-explained-what-is-it-trustworthy-how-work-wikimedia-2030-a8213446.html

The article gives a description of what WP is and tells of how it has 200,000 daily users on patrol monitoring the site to correct as much information as they can or add their own information. Anyone else can add whatever they like to WP(as long as it is decently notable). Since anyone can add information, this means people with even the most obscure knowledge of something can share what they know with the world. If they write something false, there is a community to fix it. The next security of reliability on WP is the need to cite everything because the wiki community is constantly demanding sources that are reliable and support information in articles. It also says people can use WP to be malicious and vandalize articles but John Lubbock, the communications coordinator at Wikimedia UK, says, “...it’ll probably last an hour at the most...” [due to the vast community on patrol for WP]. The article goes on to say that Wikipedia may not be reliable in its entirity but has suceeded in making certain information more literate for the average person. The ccordinators of Wikimedia UK say that it is up to the user to determine if something is reliable. The information is there. Look at the sources and make a decision for yourself and if you decide no, maybe you can change that.

DYK nomination
{{DYKsubpage {{DYK conditions}}
 * monthyear=November 2018
 * passed=
 * 2=

Toomer's Corner (Auburn,AL)

 * Toomer's Corner (Auburn, AL) is the origin of celebration for Auburn University for countless people and has remained a popular landmark in Auburn, AL for well over a century.
 * Comment: Just a popular place close to home. Just had a good time doing it (:
 * Comment: Just a popular place close to home. Just had a good time doing it (:

Created by LikesPickles (talk). Self-nominated at 06:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC).



}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this l

Reliability
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2018/1011/Why-does-Wikipedia-mostly-work

The following article explains hows 100% of what is on Wikipedia may not be correct but says that it DOES in fact have reliable info most of the time. The article talks about wiki talk pages and the types of discussions talk pages hold and why they are held( to get the most accurate info on a subject published ). Several accounts are brought up about how Wiki reliability was questioned but after further research, analysis has proven the truth is more common that what is untrue on Wikipedia and if false info does arise, it is usually quickly changed or at least addressed to the one that made the changes on the talk page.

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/in_defense_of_wikipedia.php

The article begins with giving examples of how Wiki articles were non-beneficial in some instances by providing false info but follow up with saying that even though anyone can use and change things on Wikipedia, the info that is incorrect is usually quickly reverted or changed. The article then supports the idea of everyone being able to add information on a wiki because more brains equate to more knowledge in theory. Overall, the article defends the reliability of Wikipedia and goes on to say that it could be a good primary source for information in the future of the internet.