User:Eding2/sandbox

New Topic: Chinese medicine in the Taiwanese Healthcare System (not a page on Wikipedia)

Where do we get our info? Who are the lead people in the field/in what form? How do these searches compare to what's present in Wiki? Who's an expert in this field, and what do they say about the topic?

Pubmed "Chinese medicine": earliest record in 1913 titled "Chinese Medicine in America" by Charles Kirkland Roys https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1640273/?page=1 Science Chinese medicine: second earliest record in 1934 titled "The History of Chinese Medicine", an article written about a book by Wong and Wu Amazon Chinese medicine: books to learn about Chinese medicine (Guide to Holistic Healing, Healing with Whole Foods) -> Ebay has similar results with similar books being sold
 * Seems to be an article reacting against "Foo and Wing" Herb Co. trying to legitimize Chinese herbs
 * Include common ways of perceiving/describing Chinese people (Orientals, Celestials, etc.)
 * Introduction by unknown author, most likely white man simply because the article's published in a reputable scientific journal
 * Other than introduction, seems to be a summary of the content of Wong and Wu's book

Today I'm going to critique an article on Taipei 101.

Potential post to other editors on the article, requesting their opinions on a change I might make on the article:

The last sentence of the first paragraph can be improved with citation, clearer word choice, and updated information. I suggest "It has the fastest elevator going from the 5th floor to the 87th in 49 to 53 seconds" to be changed to the following: "It used to have the fastest elevator in the world, traveling at 60.6 km/h and transporting passengers from the 5th to 89th floor in 37 seconds. In 2016, the title for the fastest elevator was given to one in Shanghai Tower. "

I hope this edit is acceptable. Thank you.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Appropriate: If a claim is made about the superiority of Taipei 101 over other buildings (what makes Taipei 101 special and significant to have a wikipedia page), then it should be backed up by some sort of citation to a document or measurements that prove that superiority. An example of a claim that lacks appropriate reference is the last sentence in the first paragraph: "It has the fastest elevator going from the 5th floor to the 87th in 49 to 53 seconds." This claims lacks citation of where the information comes from and a comparison to other elevator speeds in the world.

Reliable: A reliable source, for the Taipei 101 article, should come from some sort of official organization. This is super vague (because who says that official organizations ARE telling the truth or have an interest in the truth), but it's the best I can come up with. Examples of official organizations are newspaper, newscast, government, and societies that have an interest in architecture.

- Paragraphs with citations vs. sections without: Floor directory section has many “citation needed” markers

- New Year’s Eve fireworks displays has basically no citation (experiential so hard to have citation? Doesn’t include 2016-2017)

- Symbolism section about ruyi figures (including ref to random fengshui websites)

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

Neutral: Facts about Taipei 101, such as its height and other architectural details, should be backed up by appropriate and reliable sources (refer back to the first question). While I can call into question what potential bias the people making those measurements might have, if the organization had not been involved in any scandal about their measurements, I consider those measurements acceptable. For claims such as Taipei 101's uniqueness and cultural importance for Taiwan, those statements can only be made if it's quoted as someone of importance having said it. The reason why only an important person should be quoted is that the important person is assumed to have some sort of authority, and assumed to embody the opinion of others. This way, the wiki does not come off as a supposedly neutral standpoint supporting subjective views of Taipei 101.

- Template message: article’s tone/style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used in Wikipedia

- Some parts worded like advertisement (paragraph 2 of intro)

- Height measurements no citation --> repetition of information in “Features”

- Damper baby advertisement

'''Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

* Refer back to the first two questions and my definitions for appropriate, reliable, and neutral*

- cited sources usually about achievements, so unbiased

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

It's hard to tell if viewpoints are underrepresented if there are no reliable information online or in print talking about those viewpoints. For example, when I was growing up in Taipei during Taipei 101's construction, I remember complaints about the government wasting money on its construction. That is not something I can put into a wiki, however, since it didn't come from an official source - it came from my memory and personal knowledge. In this way, wikipedia articles can have inherent biases - if no one records certain viewpoints (due to political and social reasons), those viewpoints will automatically be disqualified from inclusion.

- Potentially underrepresented: criticisms of the construction of Taipei 101, the mall section of Taipei 101

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?'''

I imagine that some of the information in the article came from sources in Mandarin. Does direct translation count as plagiarism?

- The links tend to work, though some information needs to be updated

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

- Fireworks 2016-2017 not added (significant b/c first time with laser lights)

- Record holding titles need to be updated (Ex: world’s tallest sundial and world’s largest New Year’s Eve countdown clock)