User:CaiNdres/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant, and very descriptive. Nohing really distracted me from the main topic of harpies.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No information is out of date. Any recent research information that was used, was created within the last 10 years, and a lot of primary sources(original Greek texts by Hesiod and other authors) are used.
 * What else could be improved?
 * Explaining where the harpies came from and why they exist. The clarity of the way the myths are presented could also be improved, because while reading it, it was slightly difficult to understand.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes the article is neutral. It represents the multiple views made by multiple authors from ancient Greece.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Each Ancient Greek author who mentioned harpies appears at some point throughout the text. some a bit more than others, but I believe it's because we have more access to some works than others.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Most of the sources are books, and/or texts holding the original words of the Ancient Greek authors. One link is to a translated text, but it does not work/exist anymore. One link led to a video about how game of thrones is made, but it talked about harpies, therefore is relevant. The sources support the information made within 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?
 * Yes, each fact stated, is followed by references to the books. They are neutral sources, because they come from the original authors. It is not biased.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations about what should be said, what is not needed, and what could use some cleaning up is prevalent in this article. They also questioned what is and what is not (harpy vs. harpiae) and so on.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has been rated a C. It is part of 2 wiki projects, mythology and Heraldy and vixillology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It talks more about the side character of harpies rather than the main characters like we do in class.

Article Selection

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, it provides information from different types of interpretations
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * For the most part, they have citations, although it looks like there may be a few missing
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, the citations seem reliable