User:Mailegri/sandbox

= Article Evaluation =


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * seems pretty relevant to the topic
 * nothing seems distracting
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * there could be sources out of date as many of the references date back to either 1800s or 1900s
 * possibly more versions/interpretations of Rhea could be added since there are so many versions of all the greek gods
 * overall just need more consistent sources I think...
 * What else could be improved?
 * the mythology is very short considering her importance in the creation of Zeus and relationship with Kronos
 * keeps switching between greek and roman pronunciations even though I think Rhea is greek?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * there doesn't seem to be any heavy bias from the wiki writers per say... (Just the bias/interpretations of the original writers of the ancient tale)
 * however, there are points where it mentions "in some accounts" without mentioning the specific people they're referring to
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The cult section is very large
 * mythology seems to be too small
 * article seems to be basing Rhea's tale on mostly Homer's rendition rather than Hesiod or other old authors...
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * some sentences don't have citations
 * the "depiction in ancient literature" section has literally only one citation.
 * a lot the citations seem to be from actual books so no actual URL's.
 * the ones that do have URL's seem to be still working
 * 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?
 * not every sentence is referenced
 * a lot of information are from books with no URL
 * some probably are not neutral sources because there was a sentence that marked "it is probably true...." rather than neutrally stating the author's stance on whatever it was talking about.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * "Saturn is named after Cronus, not Rhea"
 * "Inconsistencies and lack of sources"
 * mixing up roman and greek sources with misidentifications
 * and a lot more...
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * rated start class in:
 * WikiProject Greece
 * WikiProject Mythology
 * WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome
 * WikiProject Women's History
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's (suppose) to discuss the topic in a neutral stance
 * Classes tend to be argumentative

Article Selection

 * Japanese Creation Myth
 * VERY SMALL bibliography
 * I feel like the myth in general sounds very short (compared to past creation myths we've read)?
 * Or I could write about any of the gods listed that don't even have a wiki page yet (if there are enough resources about them)...
 * i.e.:
 * Taka-mi-musuhi-no-kami (高御産巣日神)
 * Kami-musuhi-no-kami (神産巣日神)
 * among a long list of others...
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/Japanese-mythology
 * Amaterasu
 * The "Worship" section has only 1 citation on it. The first big paragraph doesn't have a single citation.
 * Maybe add her influences/depictions in popular culture?
 * because she is heavily present in A LOT of modern stories
 * http://uhproxy.lib.hawaii.edu:2053/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE4NjMyNV9fQU41?sid=627ec58f-7bcb-41ec-856c-11844da172d3@sdc-v-sessmgr04&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1
 * https://uhawaii-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=VOYAGER209287&context=L&vid=OUZ&lang=en_US&search_scope=OUZ_ALL&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,amaterasu&offset=0
 * https://uhawaii-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=VOYAGER209230&context=L&vid=OUZ&lang=en_US&search_scope=OUZ_ALL&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,amaterasu&offset=0
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/25790929?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 * https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134431243/chapters/10.4324/9780203220252-12
 * https://search.proquest.com/openview/b42bdaf1dece242b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=14004
 * Or maybe depictions in art?
 * Amenominakanushi
 * Kinda sad/weird that the first kami (god) of Japanese myth has so little written.
 * "Amenominakanushi-No-Kami" from "Handbook of Japanese Mythology"
 * https://uhawaii-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_credo10244680&context=PC&vid=OUZ&lang=en_US&search_scope=OUZ_ALL&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,Amenominakanushi&offset=0
 * https://uhawaii-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=VOYAGER2314551&context=L&vid=OUZ&lang=en_US&search_scope=OUZ_ALL&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,handbook%20of%20japanese%20mythology&sortby=rank&offset=0
 * Rhea
 * (refer to article evaluation)
 * Izanami or Izanagi
 * Jinushigami
 * the reference is literally a blog post...
 * everything is missing...
 * there seems to be a japanese wiki of this page. Are we allowed to possibly translate this into English as well?

Amaterasu Bibliography

 * https://www-jstor-org.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/stable/pdf/1177580.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aaff2268fa8e7d5793f80d196c9a0c581
 * Traditional Japanese Literature: An Anthology, Beginnings to 1600. Edited by Haruo Shrane