Hello! I am Jeff Liao and I am currently a student at the University of Washington Bothell, aiming to earn a degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Management. With the degree, I seek to land a job in either human resources or project management.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? If there are unreliable sources, identify them and explain why they are unreliable. After checking each individual hyperlink, I have concluded that all of the links in the Cricket article are referenced with a reliable reference. There are some sources that seem a little unrelated though, such as a source titled ‘Ode to Autumn’. This source may have provided insight to the cultural aspects of insects but I’m not sure for what purpose. • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? If so, identify it and explain why. Everything does seem to relate to the topic. The article talks about the physical biology of the crickets, their habitat, taxonomy, uses, purposes, and cultural value. All of these are all relevant to the topic of a cricket. • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Explain how it is biased and how it should be changed. The article is neutral, however in one hyperlink on a specific type of cricket, in the section where it is listing the “specs” of the cricket, it says “the best cricket is found…” which is heavily biased. It does not give much of a reason why it is the best cricket, other than biological superiority. This should be changed to a more neutral stance by saying, “It is believed that the best cricket is found”, and then explain who believes it is the best cricket. • Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the information comes from biological books, and studies based on crickets and some sort of aspect of their biology. • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No, there are not. The article presents a very well balance of viewpoints, but this is because it is a purely educational article on crickets and not some sort of event that is capable of having multiple viewpoints. There is not much of a debate on the biology of a cricket, except maybe the cultural meanings of them. • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? As mentioned previously, after checking the hyperlinks, there is no close paraphrasing. All of the information is derived from a small paragraph that is either quoted and properly cited and/or paraphrased with big changes, not small ones. • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Some information that could be added is under the “As Food” section. Entomophagy has been growing in the United States and crickets are quite popular as either gag snacks for adventurous eaters or as a serious food source. There are multiple companies that sell bugs for consumption in the U.S. but this is not mentioned.