User:Mncmt/OLES2129
Tutorial 3 Work[edit]
Activity 1 - Quality and Importance Ratings in WikiProjects
The wikipedia page I found was Balsamic vinegar of Modena which is classified as a start-class, i.e. the page is still largely incomplete. Through reading the page, I found a few possible improvements for the page:
- There is a large lack of referencing throughout the entire page. Each paragraph has at most one reference with some having none altogether furthermore, looking through the four references provided, I found that one was a short pdf document, two online articles and one which did not work at all. Therefore, to improve Balsamic vinegar I suggest finding both more reliable sources and just more in general.
- The wording of the sentences is quite rigid and awkward, almost like they are statements strung together to make a paragraph. This may suggest close paraphrasing from the sources or could just need editing to make the sentences flow more smoothly.
- There is not much content with only four sections of information. To improve this page to an A-class article, much more information will be needed.
- There are a few typos which also need to be fixed.
Activity 2 - Citation Needed
I added an additional references needed tag to Gundelfingen and gave a brief explanation for why it is needed in the article's talk page.
Tutorial 4 Work[edit]
Activity 1 - Analysis of a Featured Article (Sind sparrow)
Characteristics of the featured article
- lead paragraph prepares reader for the article well
- good reference list with many sources
- structure of the article makes sense/flows well
- goes lead, description, taxonomy, etc. - ordered in increasing difficulty (previous paragraph prepares for next one)
- good content box- lots of relevant information
- lots of in-text referencing throughout article- suggests:
- reliability of sources (many different sources back up claims)
Activity 2 - Finding a Topic for your very own article
Tutorial 5 Work[edit]
Activity 1 - We've (almost) done this before!
Added 1 reference to 1886 in China
Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1886_in_China&action=history
Tutorial 6 Work[edit]
Chosen article Gallimimus
Source chosen: http://www.palaeontologia.pan.pl/Archive/1972-27_103-143_29-53.pdf
Scholarship
Author’s background
- H Osmólska
- Polish Gallimimus bullatus
Where was the source published?
- Palaeontologia polonica (journal)
Is the information within the source independently verifiable?
Context
Age of source relative to topic
- 1st published 1972
- not really relevant for topic like a dinosaur (just findings from something long ago)
Intent of information, targeted audience
- present findings on Gallimimus
- probably peers (palaeontologists)
Content
Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others?
- doubt it- 93 pages long with lots fo diagrams/findings
Is the information fact or opinion? (This doesn’t necessarily disqualify the source from use but does mark against objectivity)
- fact- just findings fro research
Style and structure of content.
- journal article
- findings (text)
- diagrams
- graphs/charts
Conclusion: a reliable source from a peer reviewed journal however, may be a bit advanced for wikipedia (information presented in wikipedia article is basically at the same level as journal article- may as well just read journal article).
Tutorial 8 Work[edit]
Activity - Pair up and practice
Start-class
Good
- Notable topic- lake in Canada
- Clear title
- Written clearly but somewhat simple sentence structure
- 1 good picture of location on a map, but no picture of actual lake
Bad
- Not enough references (only 1)
- Short lead (only 1 sentence about location; not enough detail)
- Very lacking in detail (article too short, could include history, geography, flora/fauna, etc.)
- Sentences very short and packed with information and references to other locations near the lake- makes it difficult to read for someone not familiar with the area
- Some things mentioned does not link to other Wikipedia articles (though most does)
A-class
Good
- Notable topic
- Clear title
- Very detailed and concise lead (though no references)
- Clear and well written text
- Has many photographs (though not really any other media content, maps could have been included for example)
- Unbiased- good considering it's about a war
- Many branches
Bad
- May be a little long in describing what happened in the battle (takes up the majority of the article)
- More aspects of the topic could have been explored