User:Sweetpea1020/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything in the article seemed relevant to the topic. The biggest distraction was the inclusion of "Mahayana views". I believe they should of included other views of that religion or just not include it at all.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Article provides an abundant of information. The article seems vague in some areas where they should go in to more detail.


 * What else could be improved?

Could use more secondary sources. The subtopic "Spatial Cosmology" could use more information.


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

The article seems neutral, I cannot seem to find a bias.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

"Spatial Cosmology" seems to be underrepresented compared to the rest of the article.


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

The links work and the sources support the article's 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?

Facts are referenced to a reliable source. The information from the article comes from the Mahavagga on the website met.lk, essays, some are links to definitions, links to Chinese works, Maha-sihanada Sutta, and other articles. The sources seem neutral with authors providing facts.


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

Many Wikipedia users are criticizing the article. Many conversations are about the neutrality and the need for clarification in many sections of the article.


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

It is apart of the Wikimedia Project.


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

Wikipedia gives much more subtopics to the information however it does not give thorough, detailed information like we do when we discuss in class.

Brainstorming

 * Sub-topic Spatial Cosmology has the same definition as the website https://allaboutheaven.org/observations/6994/221/buddhist-spatial-cosmology-010161. Definitely want to change the description of Spatial Cosmology in to own words so it doesn't seem like it's plagiarizing. I'd like to add "Spatial cosmology displays the various, multitude of worlds embedded in the universe" (influenced by http://thezenuniverse.org/buddhist-cosmology/)
 * Sub-topic Vertical Cosmology has copied word for word its first two sentences from the website http://thezenuniverse.org/buddhist-cosmology/ without sourcing it. I'd like to either re-word it or cite it in the article.

Wiki Draft
"Spatial Cosmology" section: Spatial Cosmology displays the various, multitude of worlds embedded in the universe.

"Vertical Cosmology" section: adding quotes around "In the vertical cosmology, the universe exists of many worlds (lokāḥ; देवानागरीः लोक/लोको) – one might say "planes/realms" – stacked one upon the next in layers. Each world corresponds to a mental state or a state of being."

1. "Buddhist Cosmology." The Zen Universe, 1 Nov. 2016, www.thezenuniverse.org/buddhist-cosmology/.