User:MonaeSears/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Postgraduate Research

The lead sentences clearly describe the topic of the article and is a good and understanding way of opening the subject. The introduction doesn't go into explicit detail about the subtopics mentioned in the article, but a contents section is provided of the subtopics. The lead doesn't introduce information in great detail, it simply describes the qualifications someone would have, for it to be considered post-graduate research. As I read through it, I realized the article itself did not really need to be as long as I expected it to be. It explains the topic in a concise and simple way that is easy to digest as a reader.

The article's content is very relevant to the topic and up to date, there aren't any subtopics mentioned that conflict with current evidence of what postgraduate research is. The article doesn't focus on underrepresented peoples, but rather the general structure of post-graduate research and its representation. The article is very neutral and does not lean to any certain opinion or point. An example of how post graduate research is perceived and gone about in India if given, but the article does not say that it is better or worse than the United States' or any other country.

The article is backed up by some sources from the 3 out of the 5-citation links that worked. One was a dead link and the other didn't lead to a proper website. Another link was to a page on the WayBackMachine for an article from around 2010. One was from a webpage from the University of Pennsylvania's website and the other from UK Research and Innovation. Some other relevant sources would be post graduate opportunity links from colleges around the United States and other parts of the world to see how these programs differ or are similar. The article is well-written and easy to read and would most likely be easy for the average Wikipedia user to go over. The formatting of the article is also neat and easy to look at.

There are no images in the article, but the images are not really necessary for this particular subject. The questions asked on the talk page are relevant and topical, asking about post graduate research in other countries as well as the qualms of it.The article is also part of the WikiProject Education to add more education related topics to Wikipedia. The article's overall status is good, it's strength is that it is short and to the point, any longer and it would have probably seemed like a stretch for one topic (aside from the differences other parts of the world might have). The article could be improved with working links and references to more up to date. The article is well developed and doesn't seem to have holes of incomplete information.

OMEGA (Navigation System)

The articles' opening sentence Is to the point and describes OMEGA being “the first global-range radio navigation system.” The introduction mentions how other nations collaborated with in the making of OMEGA, and other OMEGA systems from different locations were mentioned. As well as the inner workings and how they were an improvement from what was used before, and how it became outdated because of the GPS. The lead is concise and does not include any information that is not mentioned in the body of the article. The article's content is relevant to the topic and follows the timeline of the OMEGA system. The article is up to date and doesn’t represent a group in particular. But it does bring information on a predecessor device before the more well-known GPS.

The article is neutral and does not take a stance on a particular argument about navigational systems. The article is backed up by reliable sources and bibliographies for proper reference and evidence on the topic. Not all of the sources are current, some being tracked by the way back machine for older articles. The references are thorough and provide a lot of information for just one article. A few of the links I checked work and lead to actual websites and are not dead links. An article I found from the University of New Brunswick could be a viable source of information for the OMEGA navigation system. It goes into the history and system configuration of OMEGA. But the paper was published in 1972, which may seem like an outdated piece, but it was during the time the navigation system was active and relevant.

The article is well-organized and easy to read, however there were some words used that I did not understand. But, with a quick Google search or a link to another Wikipedia page, it wasn’t really that much of an issue. The page describes how the navigation system works and how it was used and what for in concise detail. The article did not have any grammatical errors that I noticed, and the sections were broken down in a formulated way. The pictures used in the article were relevant to the topic and were well captioned. The pictures chosen are appealing, but I would like for them to be a bit larger to more clearly see the image.

The talk page did not have much discussion, more updates on changed pictures, wording in a caption, and a modified external link. This article is part of three Wikiprojects, Aviation, Transport/Maritime, and Radio. It is rated Start-Class, C-Class (Mid importance), and C-Class, respectively. The articles overall status is good and its strengths is well in the detail used on describing how the navigation system worked. There aren’t many improvements I would suggest for this article except for making the pictures a little bit bigger. It is well-developed and coordinated.

Doppler Radar

The introduction of the article is very well typed and is short and succinct, it describes the topic without deviating out into something less relevant. The lead does touch on the topics that take up the bulk of the article except for the historical background. Any short reference to the history of the Doppler Radar was left out in the lead. The subtopics mentioned in the lead were all touched upon in the main body of the article. It is not overly detailed and did not overdo the introduction with too much information to me. The article is up to date in that Doppler Radar is still widely used today and the content in the article is relevant to the main topic in describing the uses and the main functions of a Doppler Radar asa well as a few of its counterparts and what they are used for. The content is relevant and there is no content missing or that does not belong, to my knowledge. The article doesn’t refer to any major groups other than mainly large government cooperations that use or were involved in the making and development of the Doppler Radar. The article is not an argumentative one, so there are no sides to be taken and is neutral. It does not have a bias to persuade the reader. The sources used in the article are reliable from the few I have looked at, coming from the European Union Digital Library, National Severe Storms Laboratory, and the American Journal of Physics to name a few. The sources are fairly recent, some being published within the last 10-15 years, but also some from the mid 20th century. There are diverse authors of published articles, ranging from scientific journalists to researchers at the University of Missouri. The sources are thorough and reflect what was mentioned in the article from the mechanisms of different tools used for navigation to their history and uses. From the links I clicked, they worked, but some parts still do not have citations. Another source that could be used is “An Overview of Using Weather Radar for Climatological Studies: Successes, Challenges, and Potential.” from the American Meteorological Society, and “The Use of Weather Radar Data: Possibilities, Challenges and Advanced Applications” from MDPI. The article is well written, clear, and broken down into sizable paragraphs in different subtopics. The photos in the article are a nice touch, however one is not in English, and more diagrams would be helpful instead of more pictures of the machines themselves. The discussions in the Talk Page are mainly about fact checking the article to make sure details and descriptions are correct and adding insight to make the article more accurate. The article is part of the Telecommunications WikiProject. It is rated as “Start-Class "on the project's quality scale. The article overall is pretty well written and developed, but for a weakness some parts are complex and would probably require further research on certain terms or concepts to understand as a reader who does not know much about this topic or field. It can have some parts simplified for easier reading. Its strengths are the details added into descriptions of how the radar works and how it's different kinds are mentioned.

Magnetar

The opening line of the article is short and concise,  like the rest of the introduction it is not off topic and is describing the target topic well. There did seem to be a bit of overwhelming information, with new phrases that most I was familiar with, but some were new to me and seemed complicated l, but necessary in the introduction. The introduction also is relevant to the topics mentioned later in the article. The majority article’s content is very much relevant to the to the topic and the content is up to date, as some of the evidence referenced is from this year. I did not notice any references or focus on Wikipedia’s equity gaps, or underrepresented populations. There were however what I assume to be, scientific topics and links to other articles that I don’t think I have seen before on other online or in person sources. There are no particular sides to be taken in the article, it is overall based on facts along with researched data, and not with argumentative topics. The article has reliable secondary sources from different magazines and online journals ect. The reflect the literature in the article and are similar in content. Some if the links I checked worked, and I was surprised that more resources than I expected are recent (within the last 3 years or so). Many of the other articles have references to the 80s or 90s, which is not a bad thing, but not as recent. Many of the authors seem to come from different backgrounds in terms of nationality and education. As for better sources, the article was very well done on the sources where they found their articles from. I think I only saw one grammatical or spelling error in the article, it is broken down into organized parts and is relatively easy to read. Not knowing much about this specific topic prior, many of the new phrases were a bit overwhelming to me personally. The images in the article are very compelling and nice to look at, many of them were artists conceptions of different things, which is understandable for such an obscure deep space object. Most of the photos were placed nicely, one was particularly wide and a bit strange to see in that position. The captions are good, some of them could be more detailed, however. This article is rated C-Class, and is part of the Astronomy, Astrophysical Objects and Physics Wikiprojects. A few of the responses I quickly looked at referred to the cleanup of the article making it look more presentable, some parts that are tweaked to be more accurate, and a statement that was removed because it sounded silly. The articles overall status is good, and some of its strengths is many of its strong sources and detail. Some of its weaknesses is that some parts could be more detailed, like the captions on some of the images, and maybe more of a simple description in some parts for first-time readers. The article could improve with certain explanations and details but is overall developed in an organized way.

Starburst Galaxy

The opening sentence describes the topic well and is short and concise, it includes brief descriptions of the subtopics mentioned. However, it is a little bit overbearing with information for it simply being the intro of the article. The article’s content is relevant to Starburst Galaxies, but at times it does seem that it starts to delve more into the other subtopics that are related to the main one. I think the author(s) could have went into more detail of the discovery of Starburst Galaxies. That could have given more background on how other galaxies were classified and when. The article is not argumentative and does not appear to take any specific side on a topic. Many of the sources used are from reputable sources, which could have helped the article be more technical. Quite a few of the articles are current, being published within the last 15 years or so. Many of the links work, but I do not think that the sources reflect the literature in the same way in terms of detail. The article is well written and organized. It is easy to navigate through (it also helps that the length of the article is not great compared to some others) and goes over important subtopics. The photo layout could be better, but a gallery is also included as well. The images do also help me understand the topic for the most part. They are also well captioned, while some could be a bit more descriptive. This article is C-Class and ranked in top importance. And is part of the astronomy Wikiproject. Not much discussion was happening, but there were a few funny comments. The article's overall status is good, there could be more mathematical references as to how this galaxy is different to others. It does,, however, have a good amount of detail and examples of starburst galaxies as well as ones related to it. The article is developed well and is not too difficult to understand.