User:Karidappen/sandbox

Peer review by Kari Dappen
== 1. It has a very good introduction that clearly previews the topic and gives a general understanding of what Under the Sea Wind is. It also has a very clear description of what is included in the book. ==

== 2. I would suggest going back through and checking basic grammar and spelling because I noticed a couple errors. I also noticed a phrase in quotes with no citation so it may help to go back and figure out where it came from. I would also suggest adding an “about the author” section. You are telling us about this book and how it is so important and revolutionary, so giving the credentials of the author and why she is a credible source helps strengthen the arguement that this book matters. ==

== 3. I would say the best thing to improve the article would be to talk about the author and then talk about the importance of the book in society. Tell us why this book matters to the world. You have done a great job describing the book and it’s contents but you can expand beyond that. ==

== 4. My article currently has a very weak introduction that covers a very narrow topic and doesn’t say much about what our topic truly is in itself and it’s influence. So seeing how your introduction was structured and how it was detailed and to the point gave me a better understanding of how I can improve my article’s introduction. ==

First edits of History
The construction of the observatory began in 1259.

When Tusi complained that his astronomical tables had to be adapted to the latitude and longitude of Hulagu's new capital, Hulagu gave a permission to build a new observatory in a place of Tusi's choice. According to books like Jam-e-ttavarikhe rashidi (Persian: جامع التواريخ رشيدي), saf-e-elhofreh (Persian: صاف الحفره), favat-o-lvafiyyat (Persian: فوات الوفيات) the building of the rasad khaneh started in 1259 (657 A.H.). The library of the observatory contained 40,000 books on many subjects, related to astrology/astronomy as well as other topics. Bar-Hebraeus late in his life took residence close to the observatory in order to use the library for his studies. He has left a description of the observatory.

Working in groups
Why we chose Maragheh Observatory:

We chose this article because there were lots of ways to improve it in terms of ways to expand the topic and ways to revise what is already there to make it more clear for the reader. There is a lot known about the topic and we want it to be included in the page.

The talk page mentioned that it needs more imagery. There is only one picture and it doesn’t give the reader a good idea of what the observatory actually looked like at the time.

We also want to restructure the history section to separate the history of the building from the people who used it for the sake of clarity for the reader.

possible sources:

our textbooks to explain tusi’s Couple and other concepts the astronomers were working on

Mu yī al-Dīn al-Maghribī's Lunar Measurements at the Maragha Observatory (2014)

Maragheh Observatory Article Evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?


 * Everything is relevant but it is not always clear how. For example there is mention of multiple astronomers, including one all the way from China, but there is nothing explaining why they would be there.

Is there anything that distracted you?


 * I thought the history section would talk more about the building and the era but instead it mainly talked about how Tusi used the facility in his life. There were little to no details about the building and what scientific discoveries occurred because of it.

Is any information out of date?


 * It was last edited earlier this month so it doesn’t seem like anything is too outdated.

Is anything missing that could be added?


 * There could be biographies on the people mentioned in the article and their work at the observatory and something about its use for current tourism.

What else could be improved?


 * The description of the facility could define be improved. It was very hard to follow and understand what it looked like. I diagram would be very helpful.

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


 * The article seemed neutral, it seemed like there wasn’t enough substance to even take a position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * Possibly what the observatory was used for. If there was someone from China I wonder if they had a different purpose or different methods when using the facility.

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

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?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

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

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