User:Mncmt/OLES2129

Tutorial 3 Work

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Talk:Gundelfingen

Tutorial 4 Work

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

Corneal button [1]

Tutorial 5 Work

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

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

Activity - Pair up and practice

Châteauvert Lake (La Tuque)

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)

Battle of Nam River

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