User:Monruv

Intertwine Introduction: Week 1
I'm currently an undergraduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). My major is Psychology and Linguistics and Anthropology with a concentration in biological studies. The course I'm taking at the moment is about topics relating to the archaeology of Southeast Asia. As a result, we are the first of our class to be tasked with the duty of editing Wikipedia articles pertaining to the class material. Although, they can be confusing at times since this site is a maze--I've found out a lot of cool new facts!

Article Evaluation (Chams): Week 2
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, I'd definitely classify the article as relating to the subject at hand since it clearly introduces the reader to what the Chams are.

Is there anything that distracted you? The one thing that distracted me was that certain pieces of information could have been put under a new separate column since it didn't necessarily relate to the area that it was placed in. For example, the History section for the Chams article started off going smoothly but then began talking about the folklore of the Chams. I felt like that itself could have been placed under a different section, especially since the information given didn't completely focus on the history but rather stories of lore.

'''Is the article neutral? ''' There are certain parts within the article that can be reworded to sound more subjective and neutral but a majority of the article seemed well balanced.

Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? As mentioned above, there were certain parts of the article that held a tone of favoritism or rather involvement which could be worded more objectively but not to the point of claiming it to be over-represented or underrepresented.

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' The five citations I checked worked well--leading me to either research articles or GoogleBook references.

'''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?''' There were some sources that seemed very vague in the sense that there was no description of the article/book being given online even when looking. Also some of the sources which were in other languages which isn't a problem at all but it's difficult to fact check to see if things were properly translated or interpreted.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' There could be more history based sources and research article regarding the Chams and its people. Also there really isn't a section for language, findings, etc to paint a more broad and detailed image of the area.

'''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? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any Wiki-projects?''' There are some really good questions being asked by several users but the more common theme is just people throwing in links to sources.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It paints a new perspective and brings forth new topics that weren't really touched on inside lecture or provides more insight to subjects that were discussed.

Add to an article (Chams): Week 3
Found a section in the article that was not cited. There was no information to back it up or references under the source information that could confirm the information so I made note of it.

It was as follows: "In the 1960s various movements emerged calling for the creation of a separate Cham state in Vietnam. The Liberation Front of Champa (FLC – Le Front pour la Libération de Cham) and the Front de Libération des Hauts plateaux dominated. The latter group sought greater alliance with other hilltribe minorities."

The only source that could be found was a Facebook page saying that it came out of an encyclopedia but did not list the title, year, and edition.

Choose Article and Plan: Week 4
Questions to ask myself: ''What can you add? Post some of your ideas to the article's talk page.''

Things to do: ''Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox. Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography.''

In terms of the Chams article, I plan to go over it and try to fix any grammatical errors or find sources for items that are missing them. In addition, I'd also like to add more valuable information on the Talk page of politics regarding the Chams in recent time. I've already created a new section under the article to begin formulating thoughts and asking others for opinions before adding anything.

In regards to my class article, the subject we received is William A. Longacre. I'd really love to further dive into the specializations of his work along with awards for his contribution and the legacy of work he left behind.

Lead Section: Week 5
The outline or rather lead section for our class project article is as follows:

Introduction: summary of the Wikipedia page without giving too many details away--focus on broad main points.

Early Life: Childhood

Adult Life/Career: Field area of career and starting point to the next points

Education: School, Degrees.

Death

Legacy: Contributions to the field.

Awards: Recognition.

Then several listings of his contributions to the field (ie. studies, findings, work)

Continue Article Work and Peer Review: Week 6, 7, 8 and 9
Currently in progress, on a separate GoogleDoc with group members as it was getting difficult to see individual contributions on sandbox edit. We will add the final work onto Christie's sandbox then transition it to a mainspace to make final edits with correct citations.

Presentations: Week 10
'''Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?'''

'''Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?'''

'''Peer Review: If your class did peer review, include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?'''

Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?

'''Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?'''