Lograd19

Im a (1999-present) kid who's all about going on great adventures and sharing them to people. I grew up in the pacific north west my whole life. I have many hobbies including mountain biking, snow boarding, and many sports. Currently in college to be an aircraft mechanic and have an AA so I can eventually fly commercial airlines. I enjoy flying small planes with people from my work as well. Hiking is another big hobby I enjoy to do, I love to see new things and find cool places not too many people have seen before.

My main plans with wikipedia is mainly finding cool new places I've never been before and researching those places on this site. I may try writing a page on a cool new spot I would find if I ever find one. I'm not too much of a writer but I'm great with photography. I leave going to places with snow and taking great shots of the wilderness.

Thanks for visiting my site!

I visited the Mountain Biking page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects worth commenting on: the risks, the bikes, and the types of trails to ride on. The risks are endless, lots of neck injuries along with back and hand injuries. Theres many types of bikes which the article does talk about but not in great detail. Downhill bikes have more suspension and enduro bikes have shorter suspension lengths, those bikes are manly used for trial ride. There are many trails to ride on but basically downhill bikes go for trails with big jumps and enduro bike snare more trail ride with small jumps. The facts are cited with reliable sources. There are a lot from sports medicine sites as well as bike sites. Some are from ‘bikepacking’ sources, along with places to go mountain biking. None of the citations had a questionable source. None of the sources are directly biased. They all are mostly information about different aspects of mountain biking. Some encouraged mountain biking because of how fun it is, while some discouraged it because of the possible injuries of the neck and spine. Out of all 31 references, 3 of them lead to a site with a completely different language, sources 11 and 27 were dead, and source 25 required a user ID and password. This article is up to date. It was last edited on 6 October 2018, at 13:48. Many of the references are from the last four to five years which is great. There are some, however, from the early 2000’s. The article is structured very well with clear headings to represent which topic they are talking about. It flows very well. The article is very complete, but if I were to add something I would add the most popular places to mountain bike. There are different types of terrain to go on while mountain biking. The article has just the right amount of representation for everything besides the history section. I understand that mountain biking has a long history, but it may be a bit overboard to mention everything in that great of detail. Personally, I would skip over a lot of the information unless I was extremely interested. Everything is extremely detailed and relevant. It gives the reader a huge scale of knowledge about the subject. Reading this article could make you an expert on the subject (at least a textbook type expert until you actually get on a bike). The article is well written and very neutral. Not even the risk section suggests not to do it. I did not notice any big grammatical errors and the language was very professional despite the freeflow topic. Overall, I loved to read it because I love to mountain bike.