User:Mncmt/OLES2129

Tutorial 3 Work
Activity 1 - Quality and Importance Ratings in WikiProjects

The wikipedia page I found was Balsamic vinegar of Modena which is classified as a start-class, i.e. the page is still largely incomplete. Through reading the page, I found a few possible improvements for the page:


 * 1) There is a large lack of referencing throughout the entire page. Each paragraph has at most one reference with some having none altogether furthermore, looking through the four references provided, I found that one was a short pdf document, two online articles and one which did not work at all. Therefore, to improve Balsamic vinegar I suggest finding both more reliable sources and just more in general.
 * 2) The wording of the sentences is quite rigid and awkward, almost like they are statements strung together to make a paragraph. This may suggest close paraphrasing from the sources or could just need editing to make the sentences flow more smoothly.
 * 3) There is not much content with only four sections of information. To improve this page to an A-class article, much more information will be needed.
 * 4) There are a few typos which also need to be fixed.

Activity 2 - Citation Needed

I added an additional references needed tag to Gundelfingen and gave a brief explanation for why it is needed in the article's talk page.

Talk:Gundelfingen

Tutorial 4 Work
Activity 1 - Analysis of a Featured Article (Sind sparrow)

Characteristics of the featured article


 * lead paragraph prepares reader for the article well
 * good reference list with many sources
 * structure of the article makes sense/flows well
 * goes lead, description, taxonomy, etc. - ordered in increasing difficulty (previous paragraph prepares for next one)
 * good content box- lots of relevant information
 * lots of in-text referencing throughout article- suggests:
 * reliability of sources (many different sources back up claims)

Activity 2 - Finding a Topic for your very own article

Corneal button

Tutorial 5 Work
Activity 1 - We've (almost) done this before!

Added 1 reference to 1886 in China

Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1886_in_China&action=history

Tutorial 6 Work
Chosen article Gallimimus

Source chosen: http://www.palaeontologia.pan.pl/Archive/1972-27_103-143_29-53.pdf

Scholarship

Author’s background


 * H Osmólska
 * Polish Gallimimus bullatus

Where was the source published?


 * Palaeontologia polonica (journal)

Is the information within the source independently verifiable?

Context

Age of source relative to topic


 * 1st published 1972
 * not really relevant for topic like a dinosaur (just findings from something long ago)

Intent of information, targeted audience


 * present findings on Gallimimus
 * probably peers (palaeontologists)

Content

Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others?


 * doubt it- 93 pages long with lots fo diagrams/findings

Is the information fact or opinion? (This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the source from use but does mark against objectivity)


 * fact- just findings fro research

Style and structure of content.


 * journal article
 * findings (text)
 * diagrams
 * graphs/charts

Conclusion: a reliable source from a peer reviewed journal however, may be a bit advanced for wikipedia (information presented in wikipedia article is basically at the same level as journal article- may as well just read journal article).

Tutorial 8 Work
 Activity - Pair up and practice 

Châteauvert Lake (La Tuque)

Start-class

Good

-      Notable topic- lake in Canada

-      Clear title

-      Written clearly but somewhat simple sentence structure

-      1 good picture of location on a map, but no picture of actual lake

Bad

-      Not enough references (only 1)

-      Short lead (only 1 sentence about location; not enough detail)

-      Very lacking in detail (article too short, could include history, geography, flora/fauna, etc.)

-      Sentences very short and packed with information and references to other locations near the lake- makes it difficult to read for someone not familiar with the area

-      Some things mentioned does not link to other Wikipedia articles (though most does)

Battle of Nam River

A-class

Good

-      Notable topic

-      Clear title

-      Very detailed and concise lead (though no references)

-      Clear and well written text

-      Has many photographs (though not really any other media content, maps could have been included for example)

-      Unbiased- good considering it's about a war

-      Many branches

Bad

-      May be a little long in describing what happened in the battle (takes up the majority of the article)

-      More aspects of the topic could have been explored