 | This is a user sandbox of Gdsq. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Task 1 / WikipediaArticle Evaluation >> Reynolds decomposition
% PROMPT
It's time to think critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate your Wikipedia article, and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page.
- Complete the "Evaluating Articles and Sources" training.
- Read your article thoroughly on Wikipedia.
- As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
- The only piece of information on the article is a description of the physical meaning of the equation subsequently presented for Reynolds decomposition. The write-up is quite simplistic and terse, not offering the reader any additional lexical semantic resources in order to fully grasp what each term of the equation represents.
-
- Suggested action: (a) Link to Wikipedia articles that help the reader understand the mathetical notation; (b)
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- What new paragraph or section would you add if you could?
- How might you re-arrange the article to make it easier to understand?
- How many equations are included in the article? Too many? Too few? Do they overwhelm the article? How might you make the article more achievable for a first-time reader?
- How does the way the topic is discussed on Wikipedia compare to how we've discussed this topic in class?
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
- Create a section in your sandbox where you leave your notes and review.
- Choose at least 1 questions relevant to the article you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~~~~.
% OTHER OBSERVATIONS
- The article is aptly categorized as a "Stub", term mentioned during the first WikiEdu training, which means that a significant amount of information may be lacking. Examples of such shortcomings include but are not limited to relevant background information and context, as well as a thorough and accurate description. As a rule of thumb, stubs should be taken with a grain of salt, and should prompt the reader to do their own fact-checking and coduct further research idenpendently.
- No application examples. This may cause the reader to underestimate the importance of Reynolds decomposition, a concept paramount in fluid mechanics.