User:Rghx
 | This user is a student editor in Texas_AM/Technical_Editing_(Spring_2020). |
- Sections listed are extremely short and shallow
- Information is substantially reduced as a user reaches the bottom of the page
- Sections lack clarity, focus and a direction that adheres to Wikipedia's editorial standards
- lacks coherent, succinct information within sections
- non-encyclopedic narration - sounds a bit like recommendations/marketing
- all sections need expansion - incompleteness is present
Rghx (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Top 5 Article Choices
[edit]1. Hawaiian Falls[[1]]
2. Evo Morales and the Catholic Church [[2]]
3. Environmental impact of wind power [[3]]
4. Health information on the Internet [[4]]
5. Christmas in Mexico [[5]]
Rghx (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Comprehensive Assessments
[edit]Hawaiian Falls
The audience for this specific Wiki page is likely to be possible customers of the Hawaiian Falls franchise (e.g. family/large groups).The purpose of this page would be to provide unbiased, general information regarding Hawaiian Falls (from here forward, AKA HF).
Every couple of months, a a handful of editors come in and make some minor copyediting edits to polish up the article but overall, it still reads a bit like a biased article which isn't a surprise since the article was tagged as press release/news article/sensationalism in July 2019. Moreover, I did notice a particular comment in the history section stating that it "reads like a corporate report prepared by legal counsel" meaning that this article has a long history of heavily influenced/doctored since the early days of this article.
I feel once the page is a bit more organized and is steadily on its way of being free from being biased, it can fullfill its purpose a whole lot better. Moreover, it can become a great article over time when a series of edits make the tone more appropriate (encyclopedic > biased), a more simple organization is implemented and the information is more concise and succinct. I did notice that some people mentioned similar articles that can be used to demonstrate sort of the exemplary features of a waterpark article should look like (e.g. AstroWorld or Aquatica (water parks).
Points of Concern/Possible Challenges: 1. Maintaining unbiased, neutral points of view that present information in a Wikipedia (encyclopedic) tone/style may be a bit difficult since so much of the information presented is somewhat sensationalist/biased manner.
2. Finding scholarly and/or reputable sources of information to expand specific sections of this article.
3. Not sure what to use as the basis for the reduction of sections (not every park needs it own subsections) so possibly separating by chronological and/or regional range ordering.
Rghx (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Health information on the internet
The audience for this specific Wiki may be for individuals who are interested in the relationship that exists between health information and internet accessibility, what influences individuals to seek health information online and what are the implications of doing such action. In addition, the history of this article is not extensive, meaning that although it has existed since 2013, it has not been subject to being filled with extraneous information (like with the HF article) on the other hand, it lack cohesiveness as a whole and it is too sectioned off.
Moreover, there is quite a bit of grammatical errors that need to be fixed, to enhance the clarity of the sections as well as the implementation of succinct yet useful information within several sections. Given the history of this article (small minor copyediting marks here and there, occasional dead link removals, etc), this article definitely has room for improvement (see comments above) that when the proposed changes are implemented, can possibly start the journey towards it becoming a certified good article. This wiki falls under the telemedicine category so it would be extremely useful to see similar article under this category to determine how to improve the overall structure and organization of this Wiki page.
Points of Concern/Possible Challenges:
1. Finding scholarly and/or reputable sources of information to expand specific sections of this article.
2.Unsure of what would qualify specific sections of this article as removable and/or moved off to its own Wiki page (if needed)