User:162.254.11.24/sandbox

= Pyramid of the Moon Article Evaluation: = Evaluating Content:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article seems to be relevant to the topic, but it is rather surface level and lacking in-depth description for the lay person.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * it does not mention the recent discovery of the method by which the pyramid was built ("exponentially").
 * What else could be improved?
 * Organization is lacking
 * there should be a separate section on significance
 * another section of art historical analysis
 * background information section
 * the introduction should have less information in it about form
 * there should be a separate 'form' section

Evaluating Tone:


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * it seems pretty neutral to me
 * I like the phrase: "scholars suggested", but I would like to also list some of the scholars with a "such as"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Well, I wouldn't day there really are different perspectives represented on this one
 * the main focus seems to be the archaeological side of things
 * I would like to talk abut more of the sociological art history stuff

Evaluating Sources:


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * the links work and they seem to align with the information in the articles
 * but there is still only a surface level of information
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * no
 * this is something that I would need to work on
 * there are infrequent citations and notes which ask for them to be added in some areas.
 * Where does the information come from?
 * scholarly articles and a book
 * Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * the sources seem scholarly and neutral, but there are only three of them, so there is bound to be some degree of 'bias' to them.

Check the Talk Page: Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * the only comment says that there is a grammatical error
 * that was in 2013...
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-Class
 * Mid-importance
 * apparently there is a special portal for WikiProject Mesoamerica...interesting
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * they are rather matter of fact about their evaluation of things, whereas our teachings have been a bit more fluid.

= Think about sources = Compile a list of relevant, reliable books, journal articles, or other sources. Post that bibliography to the Talk page of the article you'll be working on, and in your sandbox.

Make sure to check in on the Talk page to see if anyone has advice on your bibliography. Adding the article to your Watchlist by clicking the star next to "View history" will help you keep track. If you've added your email to your account (which is a really good idea), you'll get notifications if something on the page changes.

Books


 * the textbook

Journal Articles

Other Sources