User:Gc14163/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Article: Movius Line
 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 2) Everything in the article was well written and relevant to the topic. I do wish that the intro portion at the top had been moved into a separate paragraph because takes up most of the article. This particular layout is a bit difficult to read.
 * 3) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 4) The article is neutral, and expands on this by providing multiple viewpoints regarding the existence of the Movius Line. In general, this topic is not one that is heavily disputed, so there is likely no need or reason to include siding with particular theories rather than simply presenting all of them out.
 * 5) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 6) A theory regarding the use of bamboo tools is very interesting; however, there is only one sentence written about this. Compared to the other more thought-out theories, I would have liked to see this underrepresented theory expanded upon, because in class we spent a great deal regarding its significance and probability.
 * 7) Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 8) There are only 2 clickable links which direct me to the same Chinese page; unfortunately, I cannot read this advanced level of Mandarin and cannot verify its validity. However, I was able to search online for the Zeitoun et al. link, and that provided information which correlated with the theory of bamboo tools. The article was very thorough; I am curious as to why this was not expanded upon.
 * 9) 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?
 * 10) There are a few sentences in the fourth paragraph that make claims on the behaviors of settlers that are not backed up with any citations. It is not a deliberate bias per se; however, it is not backed with any sources.
 * 11) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 12) The article talks of new artifacts that were discovered, but does not add the date, nor the citation of the work he/she got the information from. Thus, it is difficult to tell truly how "new" the artifacts are. It would also be nice if some of the theories could be accompanied by their date of appearance, so as to know the shifting theories through the years regarding the Movius Line.
 * 13) 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?
 * 14) The last edit on the page was December 1, 2017. There is only one line of conversation in the Talk page, and it is regarding moving this particular article to another category.
 * 15) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * 16) This article is rated as Start-Class and Low Importance. The article itself is within several scopes, including WikiProject India, WikiProject Archaeology, and is supported by the Indian Geography Workshop.
 * 17) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * 18) This article on the Movius Line did not look at the physical placement on the map as it did the history behind Hallam L. Movius and why he decided to draw the Movius Line. However, this article is similar in that it expanded on some of the theories regarding the evolutionary development of individuals-and the subsequent tools-who lived on both sides of this geographic boundary. Although it wasn't presented in class as a theory, this article also mentioned that instead of using stone tools, individuals who lived in this region used bamboo tools instead. Finally, this wikipedia article goes into some detail on how in contrast, some stone tools were found in Asia; however these tools were relegated to East Asia, a fact with corresponds with what we have learned in class regarding the dearth of evidence regarding stone tools in Southeast Asia.

Week 4 Assignment (what I plan to contribute to the selected article [Wilhelm Solheim])
After reading through the Wilhelm Solheim article, I felt that the section titled "Work in the Philippines" was very choppy, and had only one- or two-sentences per subsection. Additionally, I noticed that the subsection "Periodization of Philippine Prehistory" has no citations on it, despite the fact that it talks of some very specific dates. Thus, I want to search up these facts regarding this subsection on Philippine prehistory and provide correct citations backing up these facts. Additionally, I would like to expand some of these sections, and perhaps not make them seem very choppy and random.

Week 4: Wilhelm Solheim citations and bibliography
Solheim, W. (1972). AN EARLIER AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION. Scientific American, 226(4), 34-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24927314

Wilhelm G. Solheim,, "Early Bronze in Northeastern Thailand," Current Anthropology 9, no. 1 (Feb., 1968): 59-62.

Wilhelm G. Solheim, "Pottery and the Malayo-Polynesians," Current Anthropology 5, no. 5 (Dec., 1964): 360+376-406.

Solheim, W. G. II. 2002. ''The Archaeology of Central Philippines, Revised edition. Quezon City: Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines''.

What's missing
The "Life and Education" section of the article is very convoluted, and I think it can be divided into two sections (ex: Early Life and Education). This section of the article is also written rather colloquially, in that the author addresses Solheim by his first name, and is written in a narrative fashion. There are also additional pieces of information that are not related to his education, but rather his profession as an anthropologist. It would be great to add some of this information to the sections further down the article, such as in the "Work in Southeast Asia" portion. Along these lines, since there is so much information regarding his career in teaching, it would also be good to add a section on his teaching career. Additionally, since the Philippines is in Southeast Asia, the "Work in the Philippines" could be added under the "Work in Southeast Asia", perhaps as a subhead. Also, certain sections of the headings under the larger ones do not fit, such as "Solheim Foundation" under "Work in the Philippines". Once again this can be amended by putting this information under the Teaching Career, or a "Awards and Achievements" portion.

Notes for improvement

 * Divide the article into many more sub-sections and have headings that clearly encapsulate its contents
 * Re-format the references section
 * Additionally, add more references to the article
 * Have a "Early Life", "Teaching Career", and "Awards and Achievements" section
 * Have "Work in Southeast Asia" as the main header, and place the respective SEA nations underneath it in sub-headings
 * Delete and combine some of the one-sentence paragraphs in the article
 * Have a more detailed and formal right-hand box introducing Solheim
 * Fix all colloquial addressing of Wilhelm Solheim (ie don't address him as "Bill")
 * The pictures are not particularly representative of the article; perhaps better pictures which outline some of his more important works could be included