User:AshAnnLee/sandbox

Evaluating Content:
The article itself is fairly confusing to read and the structure could be improved to show a better description of the place itself. Citations are missing from the article and random facts are just thrown in with no real explanation or lead in. The article could use more descriptive pictures and the main/first paragraph needs major editing and information. More links could be added to some of the vocabulary used, to allow the viewer a greater understand of the place. In addition to this a lot of facts and claims were stated but not many citations are provided. The article also doesn't provide much insight to the tourism that takes place here, either.

Evaluating Tone:
The article appears to be fairly neutral in tone. No really bias view points are present. When it comes to balancing of the articles content, much information is given on the construction and function of the building, but there is little to no information on the buildings history. I feel as though the buildings history is being underrepresented in the article.

Evaluating Sources:
Almost all of the information provided has been taken from books and journals, which is a good sign because that means that the sources are credible and are providing accurate information. Most of the links on the page do work, however there are several words and terms that could use links as well. Also, the article itself needs more citations after some of the facts provided.

Evaluating the Talk Page:
Information in the talk page and the conversations that went on there are very out dated and took place a long time ago. The are fairly helpful but do seem slightly hostile in some portions. There does appear to be some arguing going on, or disagreements between editors on what the article needs. The article itself is related to three separate WikiProjects. We haven't discussed this place in class, so I don't have much insight as to how the article appears and reads differently opposed to a lecture.

Content:
The overall content of this article is very limited. It could definitely expand more into other applications of the hexafoil, or more examples of buildings that have the hexafoil design in them. It could also include more reference images or more in-depth explanations of how to create a hexafoil. The organization of the content on could be improved, as could the subheadings stated in the article.

Tone:
The tone of the article is unbiased and doesn't contain and strong opinions. However the content of the page is more focused on the mathematical portion of the hexafoil, and less on its usage in architecture or in other buildings. The architecture portion of the hexafoil is definitely underrepresented in the article.

Sourcing:
The sources for the article are good and relevant, but their could be more information added from each of the sources. In addition to this the article just needs more information in general, its a very brief and lacking article. Every claim made in the article does include a citation however.

Source List to contribute to article:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5. https://st3.depositphotos.com/1003916/13928/i/1600/depositphotos_139281024-stock-photo-notre-dame-cathedral.jpg

6. https://hiveminer.com/Tags/hexafoil

7. https://books.google.com/books?id=ey3F_rZwNTUC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=hexafoil+in+architecture&source=bl&ots=K-htk5xVJY&sig=fVvcvBen9zZwSGFRpmHtcn14KRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivkvCXko3eAhXpjFQKHcrLBX0Q6AEwDXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=hexafoil%20in%20architecture&f=false

8. https://books.google.com/books?id=1uZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=hexafoil+in+architecture&source=bl&ots=445Vqsjz5K&sig=AkgE1OjasXV8pjQq6Q7V8y8KzM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj93ea-ko3eAhVqwFQKHZRJBkc4ChDoATADegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=hexafoil%20in%20architecture&f=false

9. https://books.google.com/books?id=XPXNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=hexafoil+in+architecture&source=bl&ots=W8LYK7yrDQ&sig=6J4XiQx1mu2hBHSl23w6IDTlOGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj93ea-ko3eAhVqwFQKHZRJBkc4ChDoATAEegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=hexafoil%20in%20architecture&f=false

10. https://medieval-microfilms-and-facsimiles.library.nd.edu/catalog/facsimile-558

11. http://westongeometry.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/62270876/TIPSTRICKS.pdf (page 18)

12. https://books.google.com/books?id=klrTpUNU8soC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=hexafoil+in+notre+dame&source=bl&ots=pHJopiYbDm&sig=Db2_X802PpQ9FDg0TASyZaabphw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA7dK2k43eAhXKz1QKHbVhCUMQ6AEwDnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=hexafoil%20in%20notre%20dame&f=false

13. https://books.google.com/books?id=PapljPXaSbwC&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=hexafoil+in+notre+dame&source=bl&ots=yb9ubKUq6W&sig=3qGZZL-FEaq-gbmTCsdaAxMu8bo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA7dK2k43eAhXKz1QKHbVhCUMQ6AEwD3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=hexafoil%20in%20notre%20dame&f=false

14. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/gothic1/a/salisbury-cathedral

Content:
The content in the article is brief and doesn't include a lot of other examples of this type of roof being used. The pictures provided in the article could be replaced with better examples. The history section of the article could be expanded and explained more in-depth. The information is relevant to the article but could be explained more in depth and the organization of the article could be improved.

Tone:
The text itself is written neutrally and no biases are present. The historical section of the article appears to be underrepresented and could be expanded upon.

Sourcing:
Not every claim made in the article includes a citation. More exterior links could be provided to assist the viewer in understanding the references made. More quality sources could be provided for the article.

Source List to contribute to article:
1.

Content:
There is little to no content provided in this article. The structure of the article is unorganized and contains very little information and no subcategories. Not very many images for the article are provided and the information for this article could be expanded greatly in many areas. The information provided has no logical order and isn't necessarily relevant to the topic.

Tone:
The tone of the article is neutral and no bias are present. Many areas of the article are underrepresented and could use more information. The history of the building could be expanded more as well as the actual architectural structures of the building.

Sourcing:
Not all the claims made in the article have been cited. The article itself could use more reliable sources and more information in general. Not all the links provided in the article are relevant to the articles topic. The sources provided don't give much information on the Wedding Palace, and are not good sources to pull information from.

Source List to contribute to the article:
1.