User:Rafael.wind/sandbox

After reading the article about Beard Oil, I saw a few things that were missing. First, the beard trend was not mentioned. There is a big market now for these products and very few statistics were mentioned about this. Also, Beard Balm is another similar product that was npt mentioned in the article that I believe is relevant to this article.

Information science is the article I have chosen to critique for the assignment due on 2/23/17

Rafi Wind

INST201

Wikipedia Article Critique

Due: 2/23/17

Article Title: Information Science

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

The article I chose to critique is about Information Science. It has quite a detailed analysis of the entire topic, including its history and modern day career options. There is a lot of information in this article, and it would probably take up about 15 printed pages. There are about 40 sources and references, so I wasn’t able to check each one. But I did click on about 5 links and they led me to websites that seemed pretty reliable and trustworthy. The majority of the references do not have links to online articles, and instead reference journal articles or other publications. I also noticed that many of the references come from university publications and articles written by professors. Since many of these references don’t have links, it is difficult to check if the information is factual or not. However, most of the references do seem to come from various types of legitimate sources, indicating a strongly written article.

The article itself might seem to be organized at first glance, but I find many details to be superfluous and distracting. For example, the section about the history of information science is quite lengthy and too detailed. This section is distracting to read. A good way to fix it would be to take out the irrelevant details and just make shorter paragraphs that summarize the relevant history. Something else I noticed on the page is that there are several sections and headings that are quite lengthy, but only have a citation at the end of the section. In other words, the information does not seem to be properly cited in certain sections of the page.

The section of the article that discusses career options relating to information science is also incomplete. Only 2 professions are listed, even though there are dozens of careers relating to the topic. Also, the 2 careers listed are not properly cited. It’s not clear where this information is coming from. Below this, there is an interesting comment made on the page by another Wikipedia editor: “Some peoplewhich?] note that much of what is called ‘Informatics’ today was once called ‘Information Science’ - at least in fields such as Medical Informatics.” This is a good example of another editor trying to clarify ambiguous information by the original author.

Under the heading that discusses the history of information science, there is a section about the “Transition to Modern Information Science.” After clicking the link and reading the cited page, I noticed several instances of close paraphrasing that the author was not careful with. Also, the only cited reference was at the end of the paragraph so I assumed the entire section was derived from this one article. However, there is plenty of information in this section which was not from this article and therefore, not properly referenced whatsoever. Overall, this is a pretty poorly written article which needs a lot of editing.

This is a test

Hello. It is very important to be bold on Wikipedia/ref>

Bold]]