User:Voeller.chloe/sandbox

Article Evaluation's #1 Evaluating Content, Tone, Sources and Talk Page on Sleep deprivation:

In the article Sleep deprivation, information is relevant to the topic. However, it does jump and never gets into depth. The information presented is up to date, but there are many things in the article could have explained more in depth. It believe it would be a good idea to add in "what to look for" when dealing with sleep deprivation. There is one sentence that states sleep deprivation can cause death, but it doesn't go into any detail about when/how this can happen. I would like to know more information about this specifically.

No bias is seen in this article, it seems to be all straight forward facts that anyone can agree with. The organization on the other hand, could use some work. The article is a bit messy. It jumps around a lot between acute sleep depravation and chronic sleep deprivation. It can get a little confusing which is why I think it would be more clear to the reader if they did one paragraph talking about the first stage, and then moved on to explain the second. This would give the reader time to soak up the information instead of having to re-read the article to understand what it is trying to say.

The sources in the article directly relate to sleep deprivation, but they are very brief. A lot of the sources come from wikipedia and do not come from a very wide range of websites.

In the talk page, practically all comments are focused on sleep deprivation. Most are adding certain facts the writer did not touch on in the article. Three WikiProjects, Psychology, Medicine and Neuroscience taking interest to the article. WikiProject Psychology rated C-class of mid-importances, WikiProject Medicine rated C-class of high importances, and WikiProject Neuroscience showed C-class ratings and mid-importance.

Wikipedia discusses edits by explaining in detail what the writer missed. In class we touch on to many different ideas they missed, but we do not discuss each idea as in depth.


 * 1) 2 Evaluating Content, Tone, Sources and Talk Page on Animal cracker:

In the article Animal cracker, all of the information was relevant. I do believe there were certain parts of the writing that were enfisized more than needed. The main portion of the article talks about the history of animal crackers. This does revolve around the topic, but I believe the article should be more focused on the foods itself, such as the taste and the nutrition facts as well. There were a lot of commas in the beginning of the article that made it hard to read. This was little distracted and took away from the article.

A lot of the conversation on the talk page is debating whether Animal crackers are crackers or cookies. There are some comments that are on top and not useful information when it comes to improving the article. Due to the lack of professionalism, this article is rated a stub-class. There is one WikiProject that has low-importance which is WikiProject Food and drink.

Wikipedias discussions are focused more on one piece of information, where in class, we tend to list many things that could be potentially added to the article. The article as well as the talk page does give clarification to the cookie or cracker debate, but there are many other ideas I have that could potentially be added. One idea I have that would be a good topic in discussing Animal crackers is the health and nutrition in them. Another topic to add onto that could be what age groups eat more animal crackers.

I do not see any bias in this article. Everything seems to be straight facts about this yummy cracker. The article appears so have working and supportive sources to back up their claim that are not bias.


 * 1) 3 Evaluating Content, Tone, Sources and Talk Page on Butterfly tail (goldfish):

In the article Butterfly tail (goldfish), all the information is relevant. There is very little information on this type of fish. The article only talks about the butterfly shaped fins on this fish. There is much more to add to this such as its evolution, what it eats, how big it is, where it naturally lives, what is personality is like, and more. I like how it talks about the the most distinguishable part of the fish but much more could be said.

The talk page has no comments, but has two WikiProjects that both show a stub-class rating and low importance. These two projects are WikiProject Fishes and WikiProject Aquarium Fishes.

Wikipedias discussions are focused more on one piece of information, where in class, we tend to list many things that could be potentially added to the article. The article as well as the talk page gives little to not information about this type of goldfish. The sources linked in this article are stub-class ratings as well. Overall this article is not bias in any way, but there are many things it needs to add ignorer for this to become a well written article.


 * 1) 4 Evaluating Content, Tone, Sources and Talk Page on Bellflower apple:

In the article Bellflower apple, the facts are all on topic. The only thing this article really talks about is where the apple originated from. Although this is an important fact to add into an article, there is much more that could be said. For instance how this apple tastes, is it sweet, sour, or flavor? What tree does it grow from? How did it get its name? How big do they get?

The sentences also varied in lengths. There were sentences with many commas and it made it hard to read, and then there were little sentences right after which made it very distracting.

There is nothing said on the talk page accept WikiProject Food and drink and WikiProject Plants were interested and had stub-class ratings as well as low-importance.

Wikipedias discussions are focused more on one piece of information, where in class, we tend to list many things that could be potentially added to the article. The article as well as the talk page gives little to not information about this type of apple, therefore we would defiantly have a more in-depth conversation in class compared to the talk page on Bellflower apple. Overall this article is not bias in any way, but there are many things it needs to add ignorer for this to become a well written article.

Raw chocolate

In this article everything is relevant to the topic, but there are a few things that are distracting. The article states that there is no evidence of dark chocolate being healthier, but it then states that using a low-heat or "cold" production process (which avoids roasting) could help to preserve vitamins, antioxidants, and minerals, which is evidence dark chocolate is a potential healthier option. This article has been updated recently. It was last edited on July 28th 2018. There are many things this article could touch onto. Some ideas I have come up with consist of a health and nutrition section, a history and background section, a section that explains the process chocolate goes through to become "not raw" and maybe a section where it talks about how dark chocolate is harvested as well as where it is most commonly grown.The length of the article could overall be expanded on and give more in depth information about each topic it discusses. There is not much bias in this article considering it is a pretty neutral topic itself. The only thing that threw me off was the sentence that stated there is no evidence of raw chocolate being healthier but then it goes on to tell us that dark chocolate has more vitamins.It talks a lot about the different kinds of dark chocolate and the ingredients that are put into it. This is important but it takes up about half the article. All the citations in the article work, and support the claim, but there arent any citations that support whether dark chocolate has health benefits or not.Not all of the facts in the article is backed up by sources which is something to add. There are no comments on the talk page at all. It only states that WikiProject Food and drink has high importance for this sub-class article. In class we would discuss different things that could be added on and on this talk people no one seems to want to add anything. My questions for this article are what are the heal benefits if any, how do you harvest raw chocolate, and what s the history of raw chocolate?

https://www.ombar.co.uk/pages/why-raw-chocolate-is-good-for-you This is a link to "Why Chocolate Is Good For You. It states different health befits and it sites a study that was done at the Columbia University that stated raw chocolate improves memory. Another source I found was https://www.thespruceeats.com/nutritional-benefits-of-raw-cacao-3376453. This sources talks about different recipes you could use to add in aw chocolate.

I believe I could really expand this article and dive into the nutritional value raw chocolate has. This could lead to possible stories and studies that have shown raw chocolate improving their mood. Talking about how the chocolate is harvested not only is interesting itself, but it could also lead to discussing the plants that produce it and where it originates from. I could discuss how many beans it makes a year or what type of weather it grows best in, how long it takes for a bean to grow and more. The background and history could also be an important aspect of the article. This could also lead into how it got the name cocoa.

Pancake art

Everything in this article is relevant, but very short. It basically just describes the overall concept. Everything is up to date, but there are many things that could be added. They would talk about who came up with pancake art or when it started becoming popular, how it started growing and more. The overall length of the article as well as the detail could be expanded on.There is no bias in this article, it is a pretty straight forward topic which makes it easy to avoid bias. Nothing in the article is overrepresented. It has a very good start to the article by giving a very brief summery of what pancake art is. All of the sources clarify what the article is talking about. They are all up to date and work. No bias is seen in the sources for it is a pretty neutral topic. On the talk page, no one has said anything to improve this article. There is however two wiki projects that show interest in this. WikiProject Breakfast and WikiProject Visual arts have low-importance for this stub article. My questions for this article is how did pancake art come to be?

https://www.eater.com/2015/10/1/9436235/pancake-art-japan-restaurant This sources talks about how pancake art is becoming more popular world wide. This is something that should definitely be added to the article.

Animal cracker

In the article Animal cracker, all of the information was relevant. I do believe there were certain parts of the writing that were enfisized more than needed. The main portion of the article talks about the history of animal crackers. This does revolve around the topic, but I believe the article should be more focused on the foods itself, such as the taste and the nutrition facts as well. There were a lot of commas in the beginning of the article that made it hard to read. This was little distracted and took away from the article.

A lot of the conversation on the talk page is debating whether Animal crackers are crackers or cookies. There are some comments that are on top and not useful information when it comes to improving the article. Due to the lack of professionalism, this article is rated a stub-class. There is one WikiProject that has low-importance which is WikiProject Food and drink.

Wikipedias discussions are focused more on one piece of information, where in class, we tend to list many things that could be potentially added to the article. The article as well as the talk page does give clarification to the cookie or cracker debate, but there are many other ideas I have that could potentially be added. One idea I have that would be a good topic in discussing Animal crackers is the health and nutrition in them. Another topic to add onto that could be what age groups eat more animal crackers.

I do not see any bias in this article. Everything seems to be straight facts about this yummy cracker. The article appears so have working and supportive sources to back up their claim that are not bias. The questions that I have for this article would be what age groups are targeted for animal crackers. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/us/barnums-animal-crackers-cages-peta-trnd/index.html This sources talks about how Barnum animal crackers are now changing their design to "free" animals verses before where they were in cages. This would be something very interesting and uplifting to add to the article.

= Raw Chocolate = Raw chocolate is chocolate which is produced in a raw or minimally-processed form. It is made from unroasted (sun-dried) cacao beans and cold pressed cacao butter. A variety of crystalline and liquid sweeteners may be used, including: coconut sugar, coconut nectar, xylitol, agave nectar, maple syrup, and stevia. Cane sugar and other highly processed sugars are not used. Dairy products are not added to raw chocolate, therefore it is usually vegan. Soy is also usually avoided – soy lecithin is often used in processed chocolate. It is also naturally gluten-free.

It represents a fast-growing segment of the chocolate industry. Raw chocolate has been on the rise in popularity according to the Global Organic Chocolate Market. Starting back in 2017 and continuing on through 202, it is predicted that the global organic chocolate market will rise 2.38%. Organic chocolate is normally made in small batches. Producing chocolate in small batches allows the chocolate to have more unique qualities which greatly benefits manufacture because they can then price it high. Some of raw chocolates popularity comes from the health benefits it acquires. Raw forms of chocolate contain Vitamin, Antioxidant, and Mineral s like Copper, Manganese, Sulfur, Zinc and Niacin. Unlike non-organic and processed chocolates, it does not have chemicals, Pesticide, fillers, and Preservative.

The low-heat or "cold" production process (which avoids roasting) may help to preserve vitamins, antioxidants, and minerals which are naturally present in raw cocoa.[2] Many, if not most, marketers produce chocolate that is certified organic or fairly-traded.[3] Raw chocolate has been promoted on major networks such as Fox News,[4] and appeared on series 13 of popular UK show Dragons' Den. Among the (recognized) brands of raw chocolate are RAW Chocolate[5], Rawflect,[6] Xocai,[7] Gnosis,[8] and Sacred Chocolate.[4] undefined The cacao tree, also known as Theobroma cacao, is where chocolate is first formed. The chocolate that is harvested from this tree is called the Cocoa bean. These beans are seeds found inside the pods of the cacao tree. The pods have a hard shell that is brightly colored and grows in clusters on the branches of the tree. Pods start as clusters of non-scented, small white flowers; this is a type of flowering cycle is called cocoa Cauliflory. These flowers are grown on the cushioning of the tree, or aged branches. It takes around 4 to 5 months for the cacao pods to fully develop into a 20cm long pod. After several weeks, they ripen into a orange and red coloring. The cacao seeds themselves are small, brown, pebble like beans that are produced inside the cacao pods. On average 20 to 60 seeds are in each pod, and there are 20 to 30 pods produced a year. This plant grows in lowland tropical rain forest environments where shade, humidity, and regular rainfall occur. Places that fit these conditions include West Africa, the Amazon River basins of South Africa, and Mexico. These trees have a life span around 100 years. The harvesting of cacao pods consists of removing ripe pods from the trunk of the cacao tree to extract the beans from inside.The cacao pods are harvested manually once or twice a year. The harvesters will get the pods down by using a blade. Pods high up in the tree however, require a special type of tool. This tool consist of a long pole with a handle on one end, and a hook on the other. They will push, pull, or twist the tool depending on the positioning of the fruit, to cut the pods down without damaging the branches.

It is important not to damage the flower cushioning of the tree; this is what produces flowering for future harvests. Harvesters recommend to open the cacao pod with a wooden club, so the beans inside are not damaged. After the extraction, the beans will begin a fermentation process, and set to dry before reaching the market.

There are six main steps in the processing cycle for chocolate. Fermentation, drying and bagging, Winnowing, roasting, grinding, and pressing. Fermentation takes place where the pulp of the cacao bean is turned into a liquid and removed. This leaves only the true chocolate part of the bean left. Drying and bagging is the next phase of the process where the wet cacao beans are set out in the sun to dry. They are then packed and sent out to factories for close inspection. Winnowing is where the dried beans are split by air that separates the shell from the nib. Roasting occurs when the beans are cooked in an oven around 105 to 120 degrees Celsius.

After this process the beans are much dark and richer. Grinding takes place when the beans are liquefied. This is the base for all chocolate products. The last step of the process cycle is pressing. This is when the beans are mechanically pressed down to extract more of the Cocoa butter. After this process the raw chocolate bars are formed and ready for markets.

History of raw chocolate use dates back three to four millennia and even traces have been found in artifacts that go back to 1400 B.C.E. These artifacts were found in topical regions where cacao trees still grow today. The first recipe cacao beans were used for was created by the Aztecs; this was called xocoatl. This was a drink that was first used in the 1600's by the leader of Aztec when welcoming Hernán Cortés, a spanish explorer. The chocolate drinks were known to be very bitter, so people started to put honey in it as a sweetener. After this discovery of sweetened chocolate, it took off in Spain. The drink was considered a delicacy for the rich, but later in the 1700's it became more common. This is where the idea of raw chocolate came from. The latin term Theobroma cacao is translated to "Food of the Gods". The Aztecs and Mayans placed cacao beans at very high value, and where known to have divine properties. They were valued as money and would use them to get Resource s they needed. One bean could buy a tamale, where as one hundred beans could buy a chicken. They would also use these beans at events such as births, weddings, and deaths. In the 1800's as chocolate grew in popularity, powdered chocolate was discovered by a Dutch chemist. Later in the 18th century milk chocolate was produced.