User:Oliviae1398/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Earth system science

In this article I found there to be too many irrelevant links. For example, linking “the age of the earth” and “geology developed as a science”. Another irrelevant element of the article in my opinion was the education section. I do not think it needed to be included as it was just stating that earth system science can be studied at the postgraduate level which just seems unnecessary to add. I also think there are some missing explanations in the article. For instance, it will mention something such as the CLAW hypothesis but will fail to briefly describe it and how it related to earth system science. The article does seem to be neutral without a particular bias toward any view point since there are no value statements such as “the best”. However, the Gaia hypothesis seems to be slightly over represented instead of just focusing on the earth science system. I also noticed that there are some facts that do not have citations. Sometimes there will be almost an entire paragraph without a citation. Another area I though could have been improved on was the “definition” section. The entire section was just one long quote which made the sections seem slightly unbalanced. It seemed like this area could have been expanded upon, versus something like the education section. Another very minor correction I would have made is to only link the first time a word is mentioned. For instance, they linked the word “geology” multiple times. In the talk page, some users were upset that some Gaia material was taken off the article without any discussion on the talk page. This was also a conflict of interest since the user who made the edit has his own book rebutting the Gaia hypothesis. Also, the citation removed was on that he has cited in his own book. Many of the users go back and forth in conversation about whether the topic of Gaia should be included or not and if so, how much it should be discussed. Some say that if this article is to include Gaia material, it should be put into context for the reader rather than made to appear the dominant philosophy in earth science system. This article is rated as a c-class article and as mid-importance on the projects importance scale. The article is also part of the wikiproject environment to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the environment. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we’ve talked about it in class because the article does not discuss the different spheres and what they are, instead, it just lists them off ad says that they interact to form the earth science system.

Article Selection

Abandoned mine drainage


 * the lead section could have more detail added to it
 * the environmental effect section could also be added to, to create a more balanced section
 * part of a wiki project on rivers
 * rated c-class and of mid-importance

Outgoing longwave radiation


 * section could be added about how different surface emits different amounts of long wave radiation
 * part of wiki project on environment
 * rated stub-class and of high importance

Environmental issues in Haiti


 * this article has predictive undertones which could be improved on
 * part of a wiki project on environment
 * rated stub-class and of high importance

Reflective Essay

During the article evaluation, I learned that not all Wikipedia articles are developed to the same level of reliability. Most articles I have ever searched for on Wikipedia have been good or features articles. However, on the website there are loads of stub articles that need work which I never came across during my previous searches on Wikipedia. I approached critiquing the selected article by reading over the article while keeping in mind the elements of a quality article as discussed in the module. For example, a detailed lead section, clear structure, balanced content, neutral tone, and good sourcing. I decided what to add by deciding which of these elements were missing. For example, my article seemed to have some irrelevant links and some links that were missing and therefore it did not have good sourcing. There was also a section on education that seemed to me to be unnecessary and led to the article not having balanced content. Lastly, to my surprise, I saw a conflict of interest in my article since the user who made the edit has his own book rebutting the Gaia hypothesis. The peer review process was to firstly, to assign yourself one of your peers' articles and read through. You then leave them notes in their sandbox on edits that could be made to improve the article and notes about things that were good about their article. The article was reviewed using the same guidelines as the article evaluation assignment, with the clear lead section, neutral content etc. I contributed ways  that they could make their work more balanced and things I thought they could add. As well, there were some articles that just needed basic editing in grammar, references, etc. When handling feedback from other Wikipedia editors it is important to respond politely and not take anything personally. The purpose of feedback is to simply improve the article as much as possible. Through text, feedback may sound harsh but it is usually not meant to sound that way and instead helps to gain perspective and think about your article in a new way. From contributing to Wikipedia I learnt that even though anyone can make a contribution it is this exact reason that the information is also very reliable. There are so many eyes on all articles that mistakes and misinformation is corrected quickly and frequently. A Wikipedia assignment is different than assignments I've done in the past because the final write up is put onto a public forum whereas it would usually just be submitted to an instructor for grading. I also find the assignment more interactive than others I have done because you get the opportunity to post your work and receive feedback for it. In addition, this assignment has many deadlines not just one final deadline which is helpful for keeping on track for the final deadline. It is also different because you need to write in a neutral point of view unlike most of my previous assignments where you are asked to prove something. Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding of one's topic because some students have access to information that others do not, such as free library databases. Other users that may not be in school but are still wanting to learn about a topic can be relayed this information in an easy to understand way without needing these resources.This is important because we want the general public to be knowledgeable in fields they are interested in without being at a disadvantage due to lack of resources.