Revision as of 20:26, 12 April 2018

This is a user sandbox of Hazelwoodb. 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.

Get Help

Article Evaluation

Is everything relevant to the article topic?

In the article, Barack Obama on social media, mainly everything is on topic. The article is very upfront and straightforward. Some of the images along the side were a little distracting because at first glance I want not sure how they related to the article.

Is the article neutral?

The article seems fairly neutral because it is fact based upon how active Obama was on social media. It mentioned Twitter more often than any other social media platform but that is most likely due to that seeming to be Obama's preferred platform. There is no political position evident in the article, it seems to be objects but most likely if someone is to take the time to research someones twitter usage they are a fan to some extent.

Citations

All of the citations that I checked were still correctly linked to a source. This source supports the claims of the article that social media had an influence on the success and likeability of Obama. Though the credibility of the source is questionable, it is directly in line with the views of the Wikipedia article.

Talk Page

Someone on the talk page mentions the condescending information about Twitter that is mention in the article but it seems to be fixed presently. The talk page wants more objectivity and I think it achieves it.

Hazelwoodb (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible Topics

Nautilus(science magazine)

There is not much distinction between the physical and online magazine so I could add more information about that. There is a good foundation but the page leaves something to be desired so hopefully, I could add something. Nautilus (science magazine)

Though this article is requested, looks like it was requested before there was an article about the magazine as a combined print/digital work. I have a hunch that if you tried to create a separate page for the online journal, it'd get merged; as you point out, seems like there's not much difference between the two anyway. Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop Clickbait

A page on Facebook and a hashtag on Twitter where the account reads through clickbait articles and gives a spoiler. It has been blocked by several sites that use clickbait and are planning to make a browser extension. There is currently nothing on Wikipedia about this. No page yet.

This one seems the most promising to me. It's got some off-site documentation, including a news report, a write-up at The Chive, another at Bored Panda. And you can include a paragraph about clickbait, maybe another about how this fits into various other efforts to stop clickbait (e.g. the #stopclickbait hashtag, automatic clickbait detection software, etc.). Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Shitposting

A stub that does not have much information. Alternative choice. Shitposting Hazelwoodb (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This is very doable, a very well-documented phenomenon (as evidenced by the fact that the references list is longer than the article!). Either this or StopClickbait would be fine by me. Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 There is not much distinction between the physical and online magazine so I could add more information about that. There is a good foundation but the page leaves something to be desired so hopefully, I could add something.
 [[Nautilus (science magazine)]]
+* Though this article is requested, looks like it was requested before there was an article about the magazine as a combined print/digital work. I have a hunch that if you tried to create a separate page for the online journal, it'd get merged; as you point out, seems like there's not much difference between the two anyway. [[User:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|Elizabeth.f.chamberlain]] ([[User talk:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|talk]]) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 ==Stop Clickbait==
 A page on Facebook and a hashtag on Twitter where the account reads through clickbait articles and gives a spoiler. It has been blocked by several sites that use clickbait and are planning to make a browser extension. There is currently nothing on Wikipedia about this. No page yet.
+* This one seems the most promising to me. It's got some off-site documentation, including [http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/what-this-cu-student-is-doing-about-clickbait-will-surprise-you/441355827 a news report], [http://thechive.com/2016/05/18/you-wont-believe-how-stop-click-bait-is-helping-people-everywhere-13-photos/ a write-up at The Chive], [https://www.boredpanda.com/stop-clickbait-facebook/ another at Bored Panda]. And you can include a paragraph about clickbait, maybe another about how this fits into various other efforts to stop clickbait (e.g. the [https://mumbrella.com.au/stopclickbait-will-impact-world-pr-473855 #stopclickbait hashtag], [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7752207/ automatic clickbait detection software], etc.). [[User:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|Elizabeth.f.chamberlain]] ([[User talk:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|talk]]) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 ==Shitposting==
@@ Line 30: / Line 34: @@
 [[Shitposting]]
 [[User:Hazelwoodb|Hazelwoodb]] ([[User talk:Hazelwoodb|talk]]) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
+* This is very doable, a very well-documented phenomenon (as evidenced by the fact that the references list is longer than the article!). Either this or StopClickbait would be fine by me. [[User:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|Elizabeth.f.chamberlain]] ([[User talk:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain|talk]]) 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)