User:Ssahay2/sandbox

Edits to Final Review
My original work was fixed and edited by others and Aleman1993 so here are some updates on the final checklist. Overall, I think we improved the article by adding information about the epidemic and how it started. None of this information existed before.

The title is still short and simple.

The new first sentence is still direct and useful.

The lead section is still a clear summary. I removed the word "bubonic" from the sentence I added before in the intro since this section was heavily edited and changed in the page.

Everything I have written is in my own words.

The article is clear to a non-expert wanting to know more about the plague. No use of overly elaborate words.

The article is non-biased and lets readers decide for themselves. The historic facts are present and backed up with years events took place and proper citations.

I proofread the article a few times for basic grammar and english mistakes. I took into consideration the comments made by Ian (Wiki Ed) on Alemann1993's page this time when editing.

The formatting is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's.

I did not add any photos, but the existing photos in the article are shared on Wikimedia Commons. (I believe a photo was added by Alemann1993 that was not there before).

Every claim I have made is cited to a reliable source found through Google Scholar or from a book.

I made no new links. The 3 I made before from my article were wiped out in edits. Two new ones were created by Alemann1993. The 3 I created to my article (Oakland, California) still exist.

I thanked all of the people who I received help from in my sandbox.

I tried searching for "Plague epidemic" and nothing yet appears from this search in the search engine back to my article edits.

Thank You's
I would like to thank Aleman1993, Jtamed, Professorsmith, and Ian (Wiki Ed) for comments and help in revising the Oakland, California Wiki page. I used the commentary left on Alemann1993's page by Professorsmith and Ian (Wiki Ed) to re-edit the "Plague Epidemic" section (revised from my original "Bubonic Plague" section). Thank you Jtamed for correcting my knowledge about the third plague epidemic. I went back and fixed this in the Bubonic Plague Wiki page (not related to our assignment).

Final Review!
The title is short and simple.

The first sentence is direct and useful. It introduces the bubonic plague in San Francisco's Chinatown under the proper heading.

The lead section is a clear summary. I added the sentence "This is also the time when bubonic plague cases were discovered in Oakland and east bay," so readers can expect to read about this in more detail later on in the article.

Everything is written in my own words.

The article is definitely clear to a non-expert. I had my siblings read the whole article beginning to end and they stated that everything makes sense to someone who is interested in general knowledge on the topic.

The article is non-biased and lets readers decide for themselves. The historic facts are present and backed up with years events took place and proper citations.

I proofread the article a few times for basic grammar and english mistakes.

The formatting is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's.

I did not add any photos, but the existing photos in the article are shared on Wikimedia Commons.

Every claim I have made is cited to a reliable source found through Google Scholar or from a book.

I made 6 total links between my article and other Wikipedia articles.

I checked my user page and the talk page of the article. So far, I do not have any feedback so I did not thank people who helped me. This may change before the due date and I will check again.

I will try searching for my topic in a week to see if my topic pops up in a search engine. Currently I am not seeing anything come up for "Bubonic plague in the first decade," "Oakland bubonic plague," or "bubonic plague Oakland."

Begin moving your work to Wikipedia/Polish your work/Continue improving your article
I began moving my work to wikipedia's article "Oakland" in small chunks. To my earlier edits, I incorporated the work that i read in the book we were assigned in class: Plague, Fear, and Politics in San Francisco's Chinatown. I also added information on public health efforts to reduce plague cases. I added hyperlinks in my article to "Bubonic Plague", "San Francisco", and "Yersinia pestis", the bacteria that causes the plague. I also added hyperlinks back to my article in "Yersinia pestis" and "Bubonic Plague" after editing those articles a bit to incorporate Oakland as a topic. The article "San Francisco plague of 1900-1904" already included a hyperlink to Oakland so I did not add one here. After a lot of consideration, I decided not to include a photo because the article already contains many and I felt that this would be too much and create a distraction. I re-read the subsection I added and made sure that the tone matched Wikipedia's neutral tone. I also had my siblings read the entire article without telling them which part was mine and after telling them, they also agreed that it sounded neutral. Finally, I changed the subsection title to "Bubonic plague in the first decade" under the section "1900-1950." I felt this was the most appropriate title for the information I added. I made sure that the transition to the next paragraph made sense.

Additionally, I added to the Oakland talk page as well as Aleman1993's talk page, since he is also adding to the same article. This way, I can double check that we didn't add the same information. The general public can also edit the information I added by reading the Oakland Talk page.

Notes for improvement for "Oakland, California"

 * Add new sub-section under history
 * Add information about Chinatown
 * Describe epidemic of plague and how it affected people of Oakland
 * Describe how Chinese brought the plague to Oakland
 * Talk about how the common people and health officials reacted to plague in Oakland

My contribution ideas: "Oakland, California" and relevant sources
This article is a little tough to add to because there is already so much information about Oakland; however, since the nature of this assignment is to focus on the plague, I plan on contributing a significant portion under "History." Many articles on the internet focus on how the plague that took place between 1901-1904 in San Fransisco but there were also pneumonic cases that took place in Oakland and none of this is noted in the article. Since Oakland is in such close proximity to San Fransisco, I believe it is important to talk about the affect of the plague on people of Oakland. A subsection under "History" is called "1900-1950." I am thinking of maybe re-naming this and adding a subsection before this focusing on how the plague affected Oakland in the time period of 19000-1904 or I may just write a first paragraph in this subsection talking about the plague. Any input would be great. Here are some great articles I found with relevant information (along with the books we have been reading in class):

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.10.11.835

https://search.proquest.com/openview/d01289591b71b51264f5fbd14eafe76e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816629

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25157817

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473696/

My contribution ideas: Paul Sepuya Article
There is a lot that can be done to this Wikipedia page because there is not a lot of information on him. I am thinking of adding a photo of him to the page. Other sections that can be added are biography, and pieces of his work. I think his introduction can be expanded as well because it is only a few sentences. There is also not much information on his early life and education. In this section, I think it would be important to talk about his inspirations. It would also be nice to add an awards section, if he ever won anything for his work. Some relevant articles showing his work are:

http://paulsepuya.com/newsite/cv/

https://dlynx.rhodes.edu/jspui/handle/10267/23875

http://www.paulsepuya.com/

I found it difficult to find reliable sources on the internet so I am also planning on searching the library to find more information about his early life.

Article Evaluation
The article I chose to evaluate is HIV/AIDS. After reading this article I see that all the information is related to the topic. There are no distractions. If I was a person that was worried I may have contracted the HIV virus, or a person that was curious about general knowledge regarding HIV/AIDS and I read this wikipedia article, I would be satisfied. The article is neutral and sticks to facts regarding how one can contract the HIV virus, how this leads to diagnoses of AIDS, and even common misconceptions on how the disease is contracted. For example, many people may not know that the virus cannot be transmitted through tears and saliva and this is a misconception that the article addresses in neutral language. I did not feel that there were any topics that were under or overrepresented. The article has a general introduction and different subsections such as transmission, virology, prevention, and treatment, to name a few. The information is reliable because you can click on the links which bring you to the citations at the bottom. After clicking a few, I see that I can directly check the citation and it is valid and non-biased. The information is coming from a wide variety of authors and publishers who have done extensive research on the topic. Most of the articles are from the late 20th and 21st century. The PMCs,PMIDs, and even ISBN numbers (where applicable) are also available in the citations section. The in text links are also extremely useful if one wants more information on a different topic that relates to HIV. This is especially helpful in defining unfamiliar terms and concepts. On the talks page, I see that the article is rated GA. This assessment is made by an external panel and this article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. The people rating this article believe that more can be added to it; however, I think it is important to understand that this is an opinion of a subgroup of people and many people would probably not agree 100% with the rating. In my opinion, as a general reader, I thought the article included a great overview of the topic. Of course it could be edited and more could be added. For example a more detailed description of the pathophysiology of HIV/AIDS including pictures and biochemical pathways may help scientist interested in this overview. Overall, the article is easy to read, includes reliable information, and the added graphics make it aesthetically appealing yet professional all at once.