User:Fahmad007/sandbox

Hi! I am here to learn about Wikipedia and how to use it effectively to improve articles for the sake of good readers.

Article Evaluation

I will be evaluating an article on Mexico–United States border and will try to improve it through my observation by leaving notes and suggestions regarding the credibility of the article. In this evaluation, I will try to answer the following questions:

Question 1. In your sandbox, indicate which article you chose.

The article I chose is indicated above, please click on the "Mexican-United States border" link to take you to the article in Wikipedia.

Question 2. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? 

Yes, the article I chose for evaluation is relevant to the topic since it is written specifically on the United State and Mexico border. The article covers information about the border between United States and Mexico. The table of contents is well structured and covers a range of topics related to the border including information on the length of the United States-Mexico border, the states bordering with Mexico, the history of this border, and other information. The article I have chosen is overall related to the topic "borders and boundaries", and it covers information on both legal and illegal border crossings but I think the information is limited and can be expanded.

Question 3. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?     

This article seems neutral because it only provides information about the topic and does not support one side. For instance, the article gives information about "Streamline Operation" and also provides support and opposition to this operation which I think represents both sides fairly and is therefore, considered neutral. At the beginning of the article, it states that, "The total length of the continental border is 3,201 kilometers (1,989 mi)", I checked the source for this information and it looks credible and reliable but the border length "1,989 mi" provided in the article does not match the number provided in the source. This shows contradiction and needs to be changed to represent accurate information.

Question 4. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

I have checked some of the citations in this article, although most of the outside sources are scholarly and refer to books and organizations that seems credible and reputable and support the claim the article is making; however, I noticed that some of the sentences are quoted. According to the Wikipedia.org policies, the article should not include quoted statements and the editor should write it in his or her own words. In addition, some of the sentences and claims are not even cited and has not been linked to the source the information was retrieved from. It cannot be verified for authenticity and claims without proper source and citation is baseless.

Question 5. 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? 

Yes, some of the facts are referenced with a reliable and credible source. The information I checked in these references come from scholarly books, treaty, online archives, academic sources, and government organizations. However, one of the reference I checked (cited as 3) refers to a completely irrelevant topic and is not related to this article. This online reference is an article in www.cnsnews.com on smoking marijuana. Also, because Wikipedia gives editors the opportunity to edit/change and update information at any time but this article does seem to have been updated with new information. Moreover, the article has hyperlinked words linking them to information in other Wikipedia articles/pages. As I have evaluated these pages, I found out that the information provided there does not have sources and it means that claims this article is making or facts it is providing is without a credible source and hence; completely unverifiable and baseless.

Question 6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?  

Yes, I have checked some of the information which is outdated and is very old too. For instance, the article claims that "As of 2010 approximately 350 million legal crossings occur annually...", this information is old and I think is no longer credible because it is 2017 now and it is certainly not updated with new information about the border crossing. It also claims that "and is the most frequently crossed border in the world", the outside provided for this claim is Guinness World Records 2009 which is also outdated and needs to be updated with new information.

Question 7. 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 few talks on Talk page from various users and almost all of them agree that the information in the article needs to properly cited and provided with credible sources. One of the users I think did not use proper language and was rather impolite. He commented that the article is, "...messed up..." which I think isn't a good way to comment on an article. The user should rather be polite and provide constructive comments and suggestions that would help bring improvement to the article since articles in Wikipedia are collective work and subject to improvement and new information, based on credible sources, at any time. Another user agree that the article lack proper citations and needs improvements. Another user suggested a new section be added to the article which I think is a good idea. As I checked the edit history of this article, there hasn't been a lot of edits in 2017 and nobody tried to improve the article.

Question 8. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is rated as C-Class for its quality which isn't very good and needs improvements. Suggestions are given in the talk page for more development and somebody will need to step up to verify the information, facts, and claims with the sources provided which will bring improvements and will eventually make it a better article. This article is part of 6 different WikiProjects named as North America, Mexico, United States, International Relations, Geography, and Politics.

Question 9. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class (if we have)? What is your overall impression of the article?  

Wikipedia articles are objective and based on facts. It is not original research and the those writing the articles should be neutral, unbiased, objective and should not try to persuade the readers but only provide factual information supported by credible sources. Unlike college writings, where you also have properly cite, support claims with credible sources and also provide your opinion, wikipedia articles does not want you to share your opinion on the topic. You are required to provide information based on facts and do not share your personal opinions. The discussion in the talk page surrounds the improvement of the topic. Various editors contribute to make articles more improved. I think these discussions are experienced in editing wikipedia articles because they have practiced this a lot. Although wikipedia isn't a reliable source but it is the editors who make it better and credible by contributing and editing information. One thing I learned from these talks pages is that it is a team work, different people from different areas put their fair share to bring improvements to these articles.

Optional: Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~~~~.    

I have left my evaluation on the original article page which is as follow:

Mexico-United States border[edit]

Hi there fellow Wikipedians! I have noticed the following things in the article and just wanted to share it with you guys for improvements to this article.

At the beginning of the article, it states that, "The total length of the continental border is 3,201 kilometers (1,989 mi)", I checked the source for this information and it looks credible and reliable but the border length "1,989 mi" provided in the article does not match the number provided in the source. This shows contradiction and needs to be changed to represent accurate information. Also, one of the reference I checked (cited as 3) refers to a completely irrelevant topic and is not related to this article. This online reference is an article in www.cnsnews.com on smoking marijuana. Also, because Wikipedia gives editors the opportunity to edit/change and update information at any time but this article does seem to have been updated with new information. Fahmad007 (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Security Section in Mexico–United States border:

I tried to add the following sentence to the article but it won't let me do it. I am going to do on my sandbox and cite with the source.

Data from the U.S. Border Patrol Agency's 2010 annual report shows that among the total number of illegal border crossings from various countries into the United States, 90 percent were from Mexico alone. Also, there are more than 6 million undocumented Mexican nationals residing in the United States.