User:JeeringElk1/sandbox

Relevance
All content in the article is relevant to work done by Anaximander. There is one section at the end that has a few philosopher's opinions of Anaximander that may belong in the respective philosopher's pages.

Out Of Date
There doesn't appear to be out of date material however, there a a few spots that have un-cited claims.

Improvements
Find sources for "dubious" claims.

Tone
The tone is mostly neutral throughout. Although the section on cartography seems to have slightly biased claims about the importance of his work in cartography and what knowledge he should have about the ocean's curvature.

Over / Under Representation
The section on interpretations and prediction of an earthquake are a little short.

Working Links?
All the link I tried worked.

Reliable Sources?
Several sources are ancient texts and books written by other philosophers. The reliability of ancient texts is difficult to establish but are some of the only sources about Anaximander's work and so must in part be taken at face value. It is difficult to know if the books written by other philosophers are reliable without reading them however, the few I looked at do seem to have been written by people with degrees in philosophy and history and so are reasonably trustworthy. Numerous links reference other Wikipedia articles and so are subject to the reliability of that pages sources.

Conversations
There are conversations about the quality of content and pictures. Additionally, there are several discussion of people edits and people requesting help in correcting the article in other languages.

Article Rating
The article is a "good article" nominee but does not meet the criteria at this time.

WikiProjects?
It is in the following WikiProjects:

Difference compared to Class
Discussion in the Talk Page seems more concerned about confirming the reliability of sources. In class we more have to be told due to time restrictions. There is also a lot of discussion about formatting which is limited to Wikipedia.