User:Jxv084/sandbox

—

Unit 3 "Evaluating Wikipedia"

Coffee

Evaluating Content

What makes a good article?

Based on the Talk page for the article named coffee, it is now shown as a "delisted good article" which means that it has fallen from his good article status into an edit for future nomination to become a good article once again.

When comparing the elements of a good article and the not so great articles, I found that on the detailed section for the article it does not appear to be written with a fluid diction. Beginning of sentences repeat themselves as information was added by subsequent editors. The article does include headings, and subheadings, and images throughout the article, so it shows that editors try to balance the content. Additionally, I found some sentences in which sources are not mentioned. For example, on the first paragraph of the article, a sentence states "some controversy associated with.." and it ends with no source written. Most of the article is written with a neutral tone and it tries to show different points of view, but some sources may indicate potential bias.

When should you cite?

There are a about 200 sources cited on the article, but there are a number of sources that come from non-credible sources. For example, world brewers cup organization that can lead to biases.

——

Unit 3 "Article Evaluation"

Talk:Hong Kong Disneyland

Evaluating Content

Is everything in the article relevant to the topic?

Yes. There are several paragraphs that describe the how the idea of developing Hong Kong Disneyland was brought to reality. Additionally, there is a timeline included that guides the reader on the dates certain events happened. The who, what, when, how questions are answered throughout the article.

Is there anything that distracted you?

Under the history subheading, the paragraph is not very specific on dates, but it also does not seem to connect the events very accurately. I feel that this is one of the reasons wikipedians adapted a timeline right under it. When speaking about currency and increases in total revenue, it gets confusing and needs more clarity.

What else could be improved?

Expanding content on each of the categories to make so the information runs with a smooth diction. Also, expanding more on the increases in demand reported on the article would help the reader make a better assessment on the success of the Hong Kong Disneyland Park.

Evaluating Tone

Is the article neutral?

Yes. For the most part the article uses objective statements that allow for the reader to think critically and develop an opinion. There was, however, a few sentences that sound bias.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular opinion?

I found a sentence under the “criticisms” subheading, in which the section explains the overcrowding problems that the park had experienced. It states that at a charity preview event, there were too many visitors and the article states that it was “disappointing” as there were too many people waiting in lines for hours to get on rides, and even to get food at restaurants. For a statement like this, I could not find a credible source.

Are there any viewpoints that are underrepresented, or over presented?

Overall, the article seems multiple points of view to balance different ideas.

Evaluating Sources

Does the link work? Does the source support claims in the article?

Once I clicked through some of the sources to run the test to check the reliability of the source, three out of five sources tested existed, while the rest either did not longer exist or where part of a noncredible source. For example, click on source number twenty-nine which originates from the “International Herald Tribune”. Similarly, I noted a statement that needed a citation, and it is highlighted by another wikipedian.

Checking the Talk Page

What kind of conversations if any are going behind the scenes about how to represent the topic?

Some of the conversations include the editing of the article regarding currency. Also, the editors discuss which statements regarding the gains of Honk Kong Disneyland should be clarified. Editors also communicate on the external links that they had modified.

How is the article rated? Is it part of any Wiki Projects?

The article is rated as a C-class, and it is part of the WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject Disney, and WikiProject Amusement Parks Walt Disney Park and Resorts.

How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class?

The way in which Wikipedia talks about the topic is in a neutral tone covering several aspects of the topic. In this case, the Hong Kong Disneyland article has several headings and subheadings which help students reference a certain fact. In class the topic would be critically evaluated and carefully presented.