User:Bcritical/demo

This page is set up for demonstrations for the purpose of education on Wikipedia.

Editing Practice

1.Go to: Wikipedia articles with style issues. Appraise the following:

Group 1: Articles with style issues Promotional (WP:GA?) . See also WP:PROMOTION and WP:SOAPBOX.
Group 2: Articles with minor POV problems (WP:NPOV) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Group 3:Wikipedia Introduction cleanup (see also WP:LEADDD)
Group 4: Articles with Wikipuffery (MOS:WTW)

2. In your allocated groups, one student will share their screen, all student's will collaborate to find an example of the style issue allocated to the group and then proceed to correct it. One student should track the changes, as per the instructions below.

3. Go to our Group Discussion page on Canvas

a. Name your group, the style issue you considered and a URL link to example.
b. Paste an example of how this article does not meet the particular criteria for Wikipedia. You may include any other issues you notice.
c. Comment on the style issue, why your group decided the example did not meet the criteria and what you would change.

Below are past student examples

1. Style Issue: Promotional. Article Link: Phatfish

Issue 1: This article showed many examples of wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of non-noteworthy facts.

Example 1: "As well as leading worship both in the UK and across the world"

Issue 2: It also gives a quote with no citation and puffery:

Example 2: "highlighting the incredible contribution that the band have made to the UK Christian music”scene".

Tutor feedback: Incredible! Puffery and promotional. No quotes and no citations. What would you change? Comment.

2. Style Issue:Neutral Point of View. Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Armstrong.

What was wrong with the Article?

- the neutrality of this article is questionable, with strong comments being made about the subject matter without citation or supporting evidence, so not verifiable.

For example, the article says:

"He settled in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London as a money-lender, and many complaints were made to the privy council and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords of his sharp practices."

Student Assessment: There is no citation or evidence to support this statement and the supposed 'complaints' of his 'sharp practices'.

Tutor response: You might also say that the use of jargon is problematic. What is sharp practices?

3. Style Issue: Lead section. Link: 2016 New England Patriots season

Issue: The lead section of this article has too much information specific to various moments of the football season, rather than a more broad overview. It is also too long (see April 2020 history).

It also comes across as a fan page being heavily biased towards the New England Patriots and is filled with puffery.

Quizzes

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Test_and_Quiz#quiz0

https://play.kahoot.it/v2/?quizId=c4670b5a-8400-4486-bbcd-40787c72481a

Reliable Sources

Discuss the reliability and usefulness of the source based on:

Scholarship and credibility

Authors background
where the source is published
Is the information within the source verifiable by independent sources, which ones and are they credib

2. Context

- - Age of source relative to topic (expand on this for students)
  - Intent of information, targeted audience
- 3. Content
  - Does the source omit important details and overrepresent others?
  - Is the information fact or opinion? Can you tell the difference?
  - Style and structure of content.

Media

When do the following copyright provisions justify uploads to Wikimedia Commons?

Image One

An artwork at the Sculptures by the Sea exhibition in Sydney Australia

Hint 1

Freedom of Panorama

Hint 2

Derivative work

Hint 3

Public Domain

Hint 4

None of the above