User:Jnhkb4/sandbox

Working on Justin's sandbox.

Week 4 Tutorial
'Test edit' [Be Bold Wiki Page]

Article Evaluation
Traditional Chinese medicine Most things I've read in this article was relevant. I was distracted in the History section after the first sentence that it branches to talk about the Shang Nobility then back to statistics of drug prescription amounts. It seems to jump around straight to facts.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Another thing that distracted me is the section titled Historical physicians. It lists names but nothing else.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

In the second paragraph, the section seems to be biased towards the book "Yellow Emperor's Inner Cannon" and doesn't expand on any comparison.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think that the Yellow Emperors Inner Cannon is overrepresented and that other texts are underrepresented.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The link and source that I checked worked and supported the claims
 * 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?

The facts do indeed have reliable references, most of sources came from books and other articles. I don't think the bias was noted.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

I think the history section can be expanded more to actually summarize the history of chinese medicine rather than short facts and introductions.
 * 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?

I don't think there are any conversations to represent the topic besides changing links, and asking questions to other topics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is part of the projects; Alternative Medicine, Dietary Supplements, China, East Asia, Medicine, Skepticism, and Taoism. I don't see a rating for this specific article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is no talk about this topic. I don't think we talk about this in the future besides technology in china.