Wikipedia:School and university projects/Piotrus course intro boilerplate: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Typo fixing, replaced: aiming is is → aiming at is, the the → the, typos fixed: etc) → etc.), Wikipeida → Wikipedia, more then → more than using AWB |
|||
Line 83:
You are welcome to use [[Wikipedia:Peer Review]] and related tools (see tips section below) and seek creative comments on your article. In other words, if you can get other Wikipedia editors to help you, I am totally fine with that.
Once you begin writing your article, you are required to respond to any comments on your paper and act accordingly (make proper changes, defend your choices, etc.). These comments will give you substantial feedback on your work, and allow you to make your final product better. (Besides, I'm going to spend the semester reading your work and commenting on it--if you listen to my feedback, you'll end up with a much better grade. It's like I'm pre-grading it for you! Who's the greatest? Yep, me.)
Finally, you will read and evaluate/comment on your classmates' articles. Please make your comments constructive and useful. You will not get credit for such comments as "good article!" or "I liked it!" Suggest something that can be realistically improved, compare their article to yours and see if your group has learned any tricks that can help them. Also refrain from any abusive or inappropriate language. Remember, you are the face of our University for the semester--make us proud.
Line 99:
* On Monday, May 10, we will have a segment introducing this assignment. Students who by that time have created a Wikipedia account and made at least one constructive edit to Wikipedia will receive an {{fontcolor|green|extra credit}} point (1P) (please share this edit with the class during the lecture, after I introduce the Wiki assignment)
* '''Start'''. Get familiar with Wikipedia. Make some trial edits, however minor. Demystify the process. Leave behind any sense of intimidation. As Wikipedia puts it, learn to '''[[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]'''. Learn [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet|basic editing skllls]]. The three students who have made the highest amount of constructive edits to Wikipedia before next Monday (the 17th) (mainspace edits or constructive talk page comments count) will receive an extra two credit points (2P).
* Before Monday, May 17, everyone should have [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|created a Wikipedia account]], finished the [[WP:TUTORIAL|Wikipedia Tutorial]] (including making an edit in the
* '''Plan'''. But minor edits alone won't get us much closer towards [[WP:GA|Good Article status]]. We need to have a sense of what more needs to be done, and an overall plan for the article. Look at [[Wikipedia:GA#Social_sciences_and_society|models]] and guidelines (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] or the [[Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles|Guide for nominating good articles]]). What sections are required? What will be the article structure? What information is needed? Who in your group will write what?
*Research and list 3–5 articles on your Wikipedia user page that you think would make good articles for your group main assignment. Link them (so they are [[WP:BTW|blue links like this one]]). Share them with your other group members by posting the link to your userpage on their talk pages, and ask your instructor for comments. Posting this question to your instructor and all other group members on their talk pages (don't forget to [[WP:SIGN|sign]] and [[WP:BTW|link your userpage]]) is worth one {{fontcolor|green|extra credit}} point (1P)
Line 108:
* '''Research'''. This is vital. A wikipedia article is worth nothing unless it comprises verified research, appropriately referenced. This will entail going to the library, as well as surfing the internet!
* '''Assemble''' and '''copy-edit'''. As the referenced research is added to an article, we need to ensure that it does not become baggy and disorganized, though there will be moments when it is obviously in a transitional stage.
* As yet another {{fontcolor|green|extra credit}} 5P (!) activity, before Wednesday, June 1, you can nominate your article for [[Wikipedia:Did you know]]. All group members who were involved with significantly improving the article up to this point will receive 5P each IF the article is approved by the Did You Know reviewer. You are more
* Also, revisit your first edits. Have they been retained? Have they been improved by others? Post a report on your userpage, and notify the instructor for another {{fontcolor|green|extra credit}} point (1P). If you improve the edit yourself and discuss it with other editors that might have disagreed with it previously, you may receive another {{fontcolor|green|extra credit}} point (1P).
* '''Informal Reviews'''. Before Saturday, June 4, each of your members should look at an article being developed by others, review it on that article's talk page, and write a summary for your own group (on your own article's talk page) saying whether anything that group has done is valuable for you. You should try to review different articles if possible. '''Finishing this assignment on time is worth 5% of the course grade.'''
Line 213:
Getting an article assessed as a good article by the Wikipedia good article reviewer guarantees the group the unweighted 25% score from this assignment. If you have [[WP:GAC|submitted your article for GA assessment]] on time but your article didn't finished going through the assessment process in time, due to the failure of the external Wikipedia reviewer to react promptly, or if I think the reviewer treated you too harshly and I am happy with your work, you may still get the unweighted 25%. If the article is assessed below the GA class, the unweighted score will be lower (see table below):
[[:Template:Grading scheme|Here is a description]] of quality classes for an article. What we are aiming
{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
Line 253:
It is therefore '''NOT''' recommended that some group members specialize in tasks such as library research or off-wiki writing, which the instructor cannot verify.
Here is a checklist for article quality. If your article follows those guidelines, even if
* Paper is on one of the subject that was approved by the instructor
| |||