User:CJMcKenna98/sandbox

Alfred the Great Peer Review; Response
There were very few points that were made (that are also critical of my work) I feel are necessary to address here :

- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not many spelling errors but a few sentences need to be grammatically fixed.

Firstly, I don't appreciate the "not many spelling errors" comment. I think what you meant to say was "none"; there are no spelling errors in my article. If there is one, point it out to me, but because you haven't I can only assume you are not confident enough in your own ability to spell check to comment on if there are or aren't any errors. Also, I don't appreciate the "few sentences need to be grammatically" comment either. Where are they? I can't find them. You haven't pointed them out. Are too lazy to do it or are you too stupid? I can only assume (because you've given me no direction as where to look) you are referring to the many times I've used phrases like "the Old Minster" and "the New Minster" because, someone who doesn't know anything about these abbeys might conclude that using the word "the" in front of their name is incorrect. I'm sorry, but that is how you're supposed to talk about those abbeys. You'd think me doing so it deliberately so many times in the article would clue you into me being right and you being wrong, but I guess not. If I'm wrong about where your criticism lies, and your not talking about what I've addressed, I do not apologize. Maybe I would if you gave me anything more than vague words like "not many" and "a few".

- How can the content added be improved? Review some of the sentences because the grammar may be incorrect or it does not flow with the rest of the content. In the last paragraph, you claim the convicts to be "rude" and I think that word should be removed from the content because it is an opinionated word. Even though the convicts may be wrong, that word should not be in the paragraph.

"Review some of the sentences because the grammar may be incorrect or it does not flow with the rest of the content." No.

You cannot read. I did not claim the convicts to be rude (they are), I was using poetic language to describe the actions of the convict by describing their hands as rude. I said "After the bones of the great Alfred were scattered by the rude hands of convicts, they were likely covered by a building crafted for their confinement and punishment." Lastly, I'd appreciate not being moralized to by someone with the reading comprehension level of a first grade child. Your faux moral lecture is not welcome in something that's suppose to help me improve my article.

- Overall, this potential addition to the article would be good. The original article does not go in-depth about the many trips that Alfred the Great's remains went through. This information would be interesting for a reader that did not know that much about him. A quick review over some grammar and word choices will give the content justice. One potential improvement is to see if you can find add images of where Alfred's remains are currently or where they have been moved from. The visualization of the buildings and land can help the reader truly understand what the land looks like.

"A quick review over some grammar and word choices will give the content justice." No; idiot. Don't use the word "justice" with me. You don't know anything about it.

I cannot add images of buildings that no longer exist. Maybe if you read the article more closely you'd realize that I mention multiple times how Alfred's resting place was disturbed and the buildings were demolished. That's not to say there are no images of the empty sites, so you may ask "why didn't you include that?" In your review, you mention how all of the links and sources work properly, but I don't believe for a second you actually clicked on any of them. If you did, you'd see that including images in the article would be wholly unnecessary because the very images you're asking for are located in the links you apparently clicked on.

I will be making no changes to my article based on this review. My initial reading of it was a total waste of my time, this response was a total waste of my time, and it was a waste of your time to write the peer review in the first place. The entire review only consisted of saying "it was good" and the brain dead criticisms I've already addressed. I'm not happy with this, the other review I received from that freshman was far more helpful.

Phaedo Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

There are some value statements that seem amiss. Namely "one of the best-known dialogues of Plato's middle period" which lacks a citation and "Today, it is generally considered one of Plato's great works."


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Everything seems fine to me. It's hard for much of this to be out of date, considering it was written so long ago.


 * What else could be improved?

There are multiple quotes used in sections of the page that lack citation. There is one large citation at the end of each paragraph, but I think I should be able to cite the specific lines these quotes are found on if I looked for them. That may not be proper form, but if it is, I know I can do it.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes. No. This writing is not too terribly controversial. It was unlikely to be biased from the start


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Yes, most citations are to the text itself. The others are too related texts used to support the claims in the page.


 * 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?

Yes. Nearly every citation is to a primary source. The other source is proof of contentions with the nature of Socrates' trial. It's possible that this citation is not entirely neutral, but it isn't used to make a large statement about the nature of the writing, it is to point out a contention in history.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Seems this article was quite the contentious place to be back in 06'. Lots of people are arguing about the relationship between what Socrates says about reincarnation and Hinduism. Wish I could've been there seems like it got pretty heated.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

I'll list the WikiProjects and their ratings here:


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I'm not sure how to answer that. We haven't talked about Phaedo before have we?

Cross of Saint Peter Evaluation
I think this article is overall pretty good. It has a few problems which I'll list here.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Most of the article is pretty good but there's this, just awful, line in the pop culture section that I think is very distracting. I'll write it here: "In the music video for the Lady Gaga song "Alejandro", Gaga's robes featured inverted crosses over her crotch to resemble a penis." I really don't think a line like this belongs in an article about a religious symbol. It's really out of place and even if it's in the correct section it's far too crass. I think the article would benefit greatly from the removal of this line.


 * What else could be improved?

For the most part this article does a pretty good job of explaining its the basic themes. Any information it's missing, or context that it's missing, is fulfilled by the hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles. So while maybe, the article could be improved with the inclusion of that information. It's really needless because the information is already written elsewhere in Wikipedia.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This isn't really an article that is controversial, so there really aren't many viewpoints one can have on it. Me personally, I think the article should make more of an effort to divorced symbol from its popular cultural context, because as a religious symbol it is very important and has a long history that has unfortunately been completely ignored in favor of larping satanists. However, making an argument like that is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines so there's not much I can do about it. I have my own personal wishes about how symbols are treated in media but I have no real control over that.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

They work fine.


 * 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?

Most facts that need citing are cited. There is one that isn't, but it's information that's so widely known that I can't imagine anyone would want to argue against it. Specifically if this line: "It is believed that Peter requested this form of crucifixion as he felt he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner that Jesus died. As such, some Catholics use this cross as a symbol of humility and unworthiness in comparison to Jesus." Maybe something like this needs a citation but anyone who knows anything about this knows this is true. I'm sure it's written somewhere but I don't think I need to appeal to scripture prove something that to me is just an observation. Like, I don't need 19 peer-reviewed studies to prove that the sky is blue, or that two plus two equals four. The sky being blue may not be true a priori like the way questions of math are, but anyone that seriously going to ask me to prove to them that the sky is blue it's not doing it because they're looking for the pursuit of knowledge, they're doing it as a troll to waste my time and everyone else's.

One of the sources is The Guardian, which depending on who you ask is not a reliable source, but it's only used to source that stupid Lady Gaga line so it doesn't really matter.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are a few someone interesting theological discussions on this page, there are also a few people who seems to have not really read the article and are just arguing at the Petrine cross is actually some satanic symbol. It's not all that surprising because, in my experience, the people who believe that don't really know what they're talking about. Or, they are literally satanists who should be duly ignored anyway.

Interestingly enough there's another discussion on this page about the proper naming of the article. This seems to be the most common or discussion in these talk pages. I wonder why that is.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?