User:Ibabbey/sandbox

I looked at Tikal National Park in Guatemala. I think everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. The writers not only went into the history of the location but also identified each temple in the site and took the time to distinguish the significance of each ruin structure. One distraction I did find was the ruler category. It contains a chart with different rulers name and it has other columns that show the time and dynastic succession numbers. Lots of those dynastic succession number have question marks next to the number or multiple options. While some dynastic succession just have question marks and no numbers. Also for the alternative names lots of them are blank. I think these creates a distraction because it does not show a confident chart. I think lots of the information of the chart is questions rather than showing the audience accurate information. I also think they need to update the population category. It talks about how many people there were but it should be also referenced to today. It should also be explained that not many people live in the location and it is mostly tourist that go to visit. Overall the article is neutral it just contains facts from articles that link the history of the location. I think a viewpoint they should add to the article is the works for preserving the park. Tikal is facing deforestation due to unsustainable agricultural practices and government projects. There has also been damages to buildings, monuments and waste management is becoming a problem. It has also caused disruption to habitats of many birds and animal species.The article should also mention that in the 1970s the proyecto Nacional Tikal was organized to restore Tikal and construct an international airport near flores. The article should also mention that in 2005 University of California Berkeley provided digital documentation techniques that could be applied to the temples to help with restoration.

When I clicked on the names for the rulers from the chart many of the links took me to wiki articles that are stubs. But for the rest of the articles all of the citations worked and references good standing articles. I think the citation supported the article because it referenced more in depth definitions that relate to the topic of discussion. Most of the references come from online publications, university press such as stanford, oklahoma, Cambridge, and New mexico. It also referenced many books and reliable websites. The only references I think is not related is the starwars.com episode IV A New Hope. I do not see why that is being used as a reference since it is not taken place in the national park or the character are not related to the location either. Something I think should be added is more information about the park today. Such as how much it is to go inside the parks, what you can or cannot take with you, Possibly mentioning the weather there and when the park opens and closes. In the talk many people talked about the pictures posted, the organization of the page, the boldness of titles, maps, geography, damage to temple, glyphs, earthworks and the external link. Lots of the changes talked about have been done. Conversations have been happening from 2004 and the images have been updated, maps have been posted for accurate references and more information has been added with reliable links to improve the information in the article. Tikal is A listed as a level-4 vital article. It is also listed under the good article criteria. The article of interest to the following wikiprojects are mesoamerica, archaeology, guatemala, heritage sites, historic sites and protected areas. I think it follows the same format we discussed in class. It contains a summary then a content of categories mentioned in the article and lastly it is listed with references and external links.