User:Bactx9/sandbox

This is my sandbox.

Source Evaluation
Alchemy Everything in the article was relevant but, there was nothing about ancient china. It was mainly on Europe. The article is fairly neutral. There were a few viewpoints that were over represented like the East Asia and then underrepresented some like women in alchemy. The citations work and are support the claims. The facts are referenced with reliable references and there does not seem to be any biased sources noted. The article was last updated in 2012 so there is bound to be some new information out there. A lot of the conversations talked about sentence structure and how thing are stated. Also they point out some of the parts that are lacking some info. It is rated as B-class and a level-4 Vital article. It is apart of 9 WikiProjects. Wikipedia goes more into the deep details and expands on the smaller parts of the subject that most people over look.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Wiki Project
Antikythera mechanism

Antikythera mechanism project: User:Curtis Buxton/sandbox

This article is very interesting and there looks to be some room for improvement in the article.

The accuracy section seems a bit too short because there is a lot that goes in to the placement and angles of the gears and stuff like that.

The accuracy of the device may have been off by having extra movement of somewhere close to 0.5 mm and thus making it inaccurate.

Since the orbits of the planets were elliptical based, the gears could not be ellipses due to contact points. So to remedy this issue, the device was made with two gears with one slightly off axis for the other to change the speed of the gears to make an elliptical orbit.

Given that the gears were hand made, likely from a template, the teeth on some of the gears could have been off by as little as one degree but that degree of error could put a planet way out of its normal path.

Possible Sources
https://www-sciencedirect-com.libproxy.mst.edu/science/article/pii/S0094114X12000316?via%3Dihub