User:Humanrecord.io/sandbox

Article: Vedic period
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

There is a section called "Towards Urbanization" that seems illogical with respect to the flow of the article.

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

The article references a "most notable conflict," The Battle of Ten Kings", but doesn't explain why its most notable.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The textbook (2nd Ed) mentions horses as an asset used to measure wealth, and the trade link with the Persians for the purpose of obtaining these horse. The wiki page does not mention this but does mention a horse following sacrifice ritual as being noteworthy. The wiki page would benefit from explaining a broader role of horses in early Vedic society.

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

I found one that is already tagged as an unreliable source, "Reddy 2011, p. 103." I cannot see why it would be unreliable, it is published by Mcgraw-Hill.

'''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?'''

As far as I can tell these are all reliable references, but the section "Religion is still missing some citations. There are entire paragraphs that do not have an individual reference.

'''Is any information out of date?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

The oldest reference is 1977 so I assume there is more current research to use. As already mentioned, the article needs to reference the role horses played in trade routes and society.

'''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?'''

The first thing is noticed is some fairly abrasive language between the contributers. I can see how it might be stressful when you interpret the article as requiring a change but one other person continues to disagree. There is a debate as to whether the Indo-Aryan migration theory should have its own section and a caution about representing it as fact. Also in progress is a debate as to whether some sections are original research--not allowed per Wikipedia rules.

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

It is a Level-4 vital article in History, B-Class. This will make a great page for the contribution portion of the Wikipedia assignment.

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

A lot more in depth but it comes across a bit scattered and doesn't have a unified voice. Also, we talk more about where political rulers draw their authority from.