User:Unamaduraverde91/OLES2129

Tutorial 9 - Peer review

Good article: Maple syrup


 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * 3) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 4) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 5) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 6) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * 7) it contains no original research;  and
 * 8) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 9) Broad in its coverage:
 * 10) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * 11) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 12) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 * 13) The source sample for this article is large and  demonstrates a rich variety of information input, demonstrating a high probability of neutrality. For example, references are retrieved from public media platforms such as BBC, Relevant government Intuitions such as United States Department of Agriculture and books written by experts such as reference which is an edited book including contributions from notable academics and scholars.
 * 14) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The frequency of editing is very high in this article, demonstrating that information is continually contested. This is particularly evident under the "Origins" information section wherein editors have contested the decision to state a specific origin of marple syrup, when historical data indicates that this actually unknown and that only an estimate can be made.
 * 15) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * 16) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 17) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * 18) The article contains a substantial number of images which adequately complement the information they seem to asserting, proving or reflecting for benefit of the reader. They are also also tagged appropriately with their

Bad Article: Talk:Sichard


 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * 3) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 4) The prose is at times complex and unclear. It includes words which require prior understanding.
 * 5) Stylistically, the article is yet to follow the manual of style corresponding to biographies.
 * 6) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 7) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 8) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * 9) it contains no original research;  and
 * 10) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 11) The article lacks references to facts, indicating that such facts cannot be verified at all. Placing the article entirely in question as a Wikipedia article.
 * 12) Broad in its coverage:
 * 13) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * 14) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 15) The coverage is narrow and needs further expansion in order to a trustworthy and verifiable source of information for readers.
 * 16) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 * 17) The source sample for this article is large and  demonstrates a rich variety of information input, demonstrating a high probability of neutrality. For example, references are retrieved from public media platforms such as BBC, Relevant government Intuitions such as United States Department of Agriculture and books written by experts such as reference which is an edited book including contributions from notable academics and scholars.
 * 18) Given that the article is not adequately referenced, the article cannot be considered neutral.
 * 19) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The frequency of editing is very high in this article, demonstrating that information is continually contested. This is particularly evident under the "Origins" information section wherein editors have contested the decision to state a specific origin of marple syrup, when historical data indicates that this actually unknown and that only an estimate can be made.
 * 20) The article cannot be asssessmed for this crtieria as it yet to develop a discussion on its talk page.
 * 21) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * 22) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 23) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * 24) The article contains a substantial number of images which adequately complement the information they seem to asserting, proving or reflecting for benefit of the reader. They are also also tagged appropriately with their
 * 25) The article contains one image, which is adequate. The tag provided for the image however is not specific enough to indicate its relevance in relation to the information provided.

Tutorial 7 - Adding an image to your draft article:

Activity One:

Draft article link

Tutorial 6 Activities - Annotated bibliography - Mondays 5-7pm

Activity One:

Article Chosen: List of awards and nominations received by Adele

Link to source we evaluated: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-female-to-have-two-singles-and-two-albums-in-the-uk-top-5-simultaneously

Scholarship:

Author’s background

Where was the source published?

Is the information within the source independently verifiable?

The article is found on the Guinness world book of records official site, which is a reputable source because the information on this site is generally accepted as truth. This is because this source creates/ new knowledge that is verified through an independent and exclusive process which is often accepted as reputable by the public. The use of the source however is questionable or even, superfluous, as this information can be independently verified without reference material, by the general public.

Context

Age of source relative to topic

Intent of information, targeted audience

The source verifies the date of the information it cites. The intent of the information is inform the public of what record was broken and when. The target audience of the source is the general public or those interested in the source's subject.

Content

Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others?

No, because the intent is informative rather than persuasive.

'''Is the information fact or opinion? (This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the source from use but does mark against objectivity)'''

Given the source is an independent news outlet with its means of collecting and evaluating data/information, information it publishes is generally considered fact.

Style and structure of content.

Simple and easy to follow. Once again this is because the intent of the source is to inform rather than persuade.

Tutorial 5 Activities -Monday 5-7pm

Activity 1 - Citation Hunt

1. Add one source using the visual editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_North,_South_Australia&action=history

2. Add one source using the source editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gossypol&action=history

Activity 2 - Find Wiki Project for my article and outline standard procedure for developing an article:

Article Area: Ecuadorian Politics

Potential topics:

missing articles: WikiProject Ecuador/Missing articles

Other unwritten articles/ subject political parties:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_for_Pastaza&action=edit&redlink=1
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Conservative_Movement_of_Carchi&action=edit&redlink=1
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peninsular_Political_Movement_Believing_in_Our_People&action=edit&redlink=1
 * Most interested in/ reliable sources available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Reconstruction_Front_(Ecuador)&action=edit&redlink=1

Wiki project: WikiProject Ecuador

Standard procedure: Wikiproject Ecuador seems to be pretty underdeveloped, with style and guidelines categories not yielding any information.

It is suggested that the template    WikiProject Ecuador

Be added to the articale to ensure its participation in the WikiEcuador project.

I have consulted the talk page of the project to find more information regarding the style and structure of articles in this project area.

Tutorial 4 Activities -Monday 5-7pm

Activity One - Group work - I was absent this day

Activity 2 - Finding a Topic for your very own article

Creating a framework for my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unamaduraverde91/OLES2129/draft?action=edit

Tutorial 3 Activities - Monday 5-7pm

Activity 1 - Quality and Importance Ratings in WikiProjects

Briefly describe what steps would be required to elevate the article's rating to an A-class article on that WikiProject's scale.

The article chosen: Orthofidonia

The steps required to elevate the article's rating include:

●     A clear overview at the start of the article.

●     A clear structure with several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically or by themes, with images or diagrams when appropriate.

●     More extensive and balanced coverage of many aspects of the subject, with more important viewpoints getting more prominence in the article.

●     Neutral coverage, written without bias toward a particular point of view, and representing disagreements according to their representation in reliable sources.

●    More than one reliable sources are used throughout the article.

Activity 4 - Tag, you're it (yet to do)

Article I tagged: Pig Latin

Edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pig_Latin&action=history

The following message box was used at the top of the article to support my opinion needed further citations in order to be reliable. I also placed the Citation needed through out the article to demonstrate the extensive nature of the clean up needed.More citations needed

I also contributed to the talk page and suggested why I had inserted the above message box. This was done under the subheading " this article should be removed". [ Talk:Pig Latin]

Tutorial 2 Activities -Friday 5-7pm

'''Activity 2: Find an article on a topic that you are interested in or are knowledgeable about. Have a look at the first substantial edit on that page through its revision history.'''

'''If you had created this article first - what would you have done differently? If you were the second reader, how would you have edited the article? Write up your thoughts on your user page (100-200 words is plenty).'''

The article chosen was Cyborg Manifesto.

The first substantial edit was made by  Voyager64  and can be assessed via this link

If I had created the article first, I would have explicitly stated what the Cyborg Manifesto was. That is, I would have provided details including the date it was published as well as briefly outlined its objectives and political intentions by referencing the the manifesto itself and elaborating on its central topic areas, with the help of reliable sources. This would have ensured my article was less subjective, maintained a neutral voice and achieved its intention of informing rather than pushing an opinion, something which the first edit appears to do. If I was the second reader, I would have began by changing the subject of the first sentence of the article from cyborg theory to cyborg manifesto, before including what this actually is: an essay published by Donna Haraway in 198