User:Kaylahlieuw/sandbox

I chose to critique the page on Climbing Equipment. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rock-climbing_equipment The page is much more extensive than I thought it would be. Could add a system board or peg board to training equipment. Could break up the section on belay devices like they did for equipment to rappel. Could show what a chalk bag looks like. There are also chalk buckets that are not attached to you that people use most commonly for bouldering. There is also liquid chalk which is basically rubbing alcohol mixed with fine chalk that stays on your hands longer than normal chalk. Lastly, could possibly make a page that explains different climbing workouts for different goals. Kaylahlieuw (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I found it very difficult to add much information to the Track Spikes page given that I have no knowledge on this topic. I approached critiquing that article by looking at the sources and reading through the page. Given that I have very limited knowledge and it was difficult to meet up with my group mate that was on the track team, I focused on improving the readability of the section “Types of Spikes” that I got assigned by my group mates. I mostly improved the flow and wording of the “types of spikes” on the Track Spikes wiki page.

On the other hand, I approached the page on climbing harnesses a bit differently. Since I have much more experience with climbing and I just did a lot of research for my final presentation, I focused on adding more information to the relatively short wiki page. I included a sentence on climbing injury not being related to harness type in the harness type section and cited the scientific paper in references. I also added some more information about the materials that harnesses are made of and included some internal links to other wiki pages that might be helpful in learning about climbing harnesses like nylon 66 and figure eight knot.

Throughout this wiki project process, I have learned that it’s very easy to edit Wikipedia pages. It’s good in this case because we did research and did the training so we could properly enhance the articles but it also showed me how Wikipedia is definitely not the most reliable source. Anyone can edit the pages and some of the resources people use are biased. I thought that this Wikipedia assignment was interesting compared to other assignments I have done in the past. Wikipedia is definitely important on improving public understanding of many topics because so many people use wikipedia and think of it as a reliable source and many of the pages are outdated, biased, or difficult to read. Kaylahlieuw (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)