User:Abrahamrhoffman/sandbox: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Article Review === |
=== Article Review === |
||
[April 15th, 2019] |
[April 15th, 2019] |
||
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ |
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music) |
||
''Q1.'' Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?<br> |
''Q1.'' Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?<br> |
||
I feel like the article focused more on the impact of sampling and not on what it actually is.<br> |
|||
The article is directly about the life of Claude E. Shannon, the creator of Information Theory. While the short biography was interesting, there was little detail on Information Theory itself, but more details on the accomplishments that Shannon received throughout his life.<br> |
|||
''Q2.'' Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?<br> |
''Q2.'' Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?<br> |
||
The article is biased against those musicians and entertainers that misuse the music they are sampling. |
|||
The article is describing events that occurred in Claude Shannon's life, but it does seem biased. The words and phrases chosen exalt Shannon's life and accomplishments and demonstrate respect for the work he performed in the field. <br> |
|||
''Q3.'' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or under-represented?<br> |
''Q3.'' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or under-represented?<br> |
||
The viewpoint of those benefitting from resampling is underrepresented.<br> |
|||
Certain aspects of Shannon's life are overrepresented, such as his accomplishments and awards. I would have liked to see more about his personal life and struggles with his ideas.<br> |
|||
''Q4.'' Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?<br> |
''Q4.'' Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?<br> |
||
The links do work, and the sources are surprisingly accurate! Good job community!<br> |
|||
''Q5.'' Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?<br> |
''Q5.'' Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?<br> |
||
The facts are referenced as a whole, instead of individually. The information comes from scholarly journals and published books. The bias is present, and is not noted.<br> |
The facts are referenced as a whole, instead of individually. The information comes from scholarly journals and published books. The bias is present, and is not noted.<br> |
||
''Q6.'' Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?<br> |
''Q6.'' Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?<br> |
||
The information appears up-to-date. I would like to see a more holistic approach to |
The information appears up-to-date. I would like to see a more holistic approach to the idea of music sampling including a technical representation.<br> |
||
''Q7.'' 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?<br> |
''Q7.'' 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?<br> |
||
There is an in-depth conversation going on behind the article with regards to the representation of a particular artist. The discussion is about the artist's use of sampling and his originality.<br> |
|||
Some pretty in-depth conversations are presented in the 'Talk' part of the page. Though mostly, the conversations relate to highlighting aspects of Shannon's life that are 'relevant'.<br> |
|||
''Q8.'' How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?<br> |
''Q8.'' How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?<br> |
||
It is not rated and is not a part of any WikiProject.<br> |
It is not rated and is not a part of any WikiProject yet.<br> |
||
''Q9.'' How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?<br> |
''Q9.'' How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?<br> |
||
There is less control in the way citations are crafted. Editors seem to be more interested in representing their ideas, instead of finding valid sources from which to cite.<br> |
There is less control in the way citations are crafted. Editors seem to be more interested in representing their ideas, instead of finding valid sources from which to cite.<br> |
||
Latest revision as of 23:28, 9 May 2019
 | This is a user sandbox of Abrahamrhoffman. 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. |
Article evaluation
[edit]Final Topic: Information Theory
Article Review
[edit][April 15th, 2019] Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)
Q1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
I feel like the article focused more on the impact of sampling and not on what it actually is.
Q2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article is biased against those musicians and entertainers that misuse the music they are sampling.
Q3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or under-represented?
The viewpoint of those benefitting from resampling is underrepresented.
Q4. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The links do work, and the sources are surprisingly accurate! Good job community!
Q5. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The facts are referenced as a whole, instead of individually. The information comes from scholarly journals and published books. The bias is present, and is not noted.
Q6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The information appears up-to-date. I would like to see a more holistic approach to the idea of music sampling including a technical representation.
Q7. 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?
There is an in-depth conversation going on behind the article with regards to the representation of a particular artist. The discussion is about the artist's use of sampling and his originality.
Q8. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It is not rated and is not a part of any WikiProject yet.
Q9. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
There is less control in the way citations are crafted. Editors seem to be more interested in representing their ideas, instead of finding valid sources from which to cite.