User:CJManalo25/sandbox

Week 4: Getting Ready to Edit With Project Animal (Dogfish)

Three Wikipedia pages I am interested in :

1. Pacific Spiny Dogfish - I chose this because this is the most abundant spiny dogfish and it migrates seasonally to the Puget Sound, which I thought was interesting. Since this species is "local" I thought it would be interesting to find more information on it. Most sections are fairly short, so a possible edit can be expanded upon such as gills and the spiracle, which is my other two choices.
2. Gill Slit - From my reading, spiny dogfish have a special type of ventilation, which differs from bony fishes. They have gill slits instead of gill covers like bony fishes. The way the gill functions helps in respiration and feeding, but I want to focus on how the evolution of the gill slits instead of bony fishes. I'm interested why this is apparent compared to gill covers. An edit on this page is to add a section or information about the evolutionary timeline or relationship of gill slits.
3. Spiracle - Like gill slits, spiny dogfishes have a spiracle that operates within the same function as ventilation, but it is a unique feature to cartilaginous fishes. It was originally derived from a pair of gill openings in jawed vertebrates, but the lower gill closed off leaving the spiracle. I'm interested in how it relates to the gills and what it looks like. Spiracles are homologs to the inner ear in modern tetrapods, which I did not know about. This page can be more organized in short section because there are multiple topics that touch on evolution, respiration and sharks/cartilaginous fishes. An edit can be adding Heading sections, so it is easier to read.

**Honorable mention: I wanted to look more into the spines on the dorsal fin, but I could not find any Wikipedia pages containing that information.

Three Wikipedia pages I want to edit:

1. Shark anatomy
2. Squalidae
3. Manta ray - closely related to sharks, so they have similar features.

Week 3: Adding An Article

Article Edit: Hagfish

This is where I will place my ideas on editing this Wikipedia Article and other notes I will have.

Hagfish (Beginning Background Information)

The classification of hagfish had been controversial. The issue was whether the hagfish was a degenerate type of vertebrate-fish that through evolution had lost its vertebrae (the original scheme) and was most closely related to lampreys, or whether hagfish represent a stage that precedes the evolution of the vertebral column (the alternative scheme) as is the case with lancelets. Recent DNA evidence has supported the original scheme.

• My edit summary: For me, the phrases "original scheme" and "alternative scheme" was awkward to use in describing the evolutionary relationship between vertebrates and hagfishes. The use of this phrase continues until the first section of 'Physical features.' Also, the use of the word "degenerate" is not appropriate–seems too anthropomorphic, so odd use of vocabulary. It falls along the using language such as more "primitive" or "advanced" which we are trying to avoid.
• Proposed Talk: It seems like the editor tried to paraphrase from the source, but it did not turn out well. To replace the work 'degenerate,' I would suggest using the word simple as in "the hagfish was a simple vertebrae type-fish." To change the word "scheme," I would suggest changing it to the word "belief." This whole section can be re-written with a larger edit as well, which might be easier to read for everyone.

As food

In most of the world, hagfish are not often eaten. In Korea, the hagfish is a valued food, where it is generally skinned, coated in spicy sauce, and grilled over charcoal or stir-fried. It is especially popular in the southern port cities of the peninsula, such as Busan.^{[citation needed]}

• My edit summary: My first article edit is in the "As food" section, where it details how hagfish are eaten as a cuisine. This section is short with little detail, and a citation is needed. To resolve this issue, I identified a reference to use and change the wording to support the original claim on the article. The possible edit can be:
  • Although it is not normally eaten, hagfish is valued as a meal. In Korea, hagfish are killed, skinned, diced in a spicy sauce cooked or grilled. Fish markets sell hagfishes for cooking and can be found in Jagachi Market, the second largest fish market in Korea, located in Busan.
• Proposed Talk: This sentence in the section does not have a citation. Here is a possible edit, where I found a reference to use to further support the original claim. I also added information regarding Busan which has 'Jagachi Market' that sells hagfish.

Possible Updated References:

Hagfish from the Cretaceous Tethys Sea and a reconciliation of the morphological–molecular conflict in early vertebrate phylogeny

Tetsuto Miyashita, Michael I. Coates, Robert Farrar, Peter Larson, Phillip L. Manning, Roy A. Wogelius, Nicholas P. Edwards, Jennifer Anné, Uwe Bergmann, A. Richard Palmer, Philip J. Currie

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2019, 116 (6) 2146-2151

Week 2: Article Evaluation

Article I evaluated: Hagfish

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • I found the sections such as Body Features, Slime, and Respiration as appropriate to the article topic. However, there was less information or attention on the musculoskeletal system and phylogeny, which is a main interest in our class. There is a commercial use section towards the end of the article that is incomplete, which was distracting.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is neutral from my reading. There was one sentence that says "according to the fossil record" which can be perceived as a bias, since the fossil record is not complete. To me, it implies that information following the sentence is a truth because the fossil record provides evidence.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I think the discussion of phylogeny was underrepresented in this article; more can be said than what it has currently. A possible edit is including a discussion of the fossil record briefly.
• Check a few citations.
  • Are they properly formatted?
    • From my reading, a majority of the citations are formatted properly. There were a few citations I found that are not as reputable such as an article from MSN, which did not contain an author and it was taken from another source not cited.
  • Do the links work?
    • Most of the links work, but some go to other Wikipedia pages that need to be worked on.
  • Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Are there any instances of plagiarism on the page?
    • From what I read, I did not identify any forms of plagiarism, but I can tell the editors tried to piece together information in their own words.
  • Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • Talk page heavily discussed whether a hagfish was a vertebrate or not. Users did mention it belonging to the chordates, but conversations mostly discussed where hagfish belongs on a phylogeny.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • This article was rated as a C, which is an intermediate article that can be further improved and edited.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • There are other features of lamprey we did not touch upon such as their reproduction, cardiac function, fluid balance, and their eyes.

Content Gaps

• Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
  • A content gap could be a gap information, where it doesn't tell the whole story of the topic. To be able to identify them, I found areas where sentences left me confused or certain information was not discussed thoroughly. Additionally, if there are gaps in the citations and sources, it can indicate that editors did not have enough information to write.
• What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?\
  • Editors can use non-reputable sources, so locating more reputable sources can be a way to resolve that issue.
• Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
  • I don't think it matters who writes Wikipedia, but HOW they write articles is the most important quality.
• What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
  • To be "unbiased" on Wikipedia means to have a neutral standpoint and be able to write neutrally as well. My definition of bias illustrates favor for or against a concept in terms of writing.

Possible edits

• Commercial Use section looks incomplete. This is an area that if I find more resources, I can possibly complete. Other things I noticed:
  • Writing style can be improved. There were awkward words and phrases that can be simplified.
  • External links to help define term