User:Tnrud23/sandbox

Article Review
Article read: Kumulipo


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * No, since it was very short it was very concise about the topic.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * More could be added to its creation story and how, why it came about about. The most they had here was a sentence explaining each part.
 * What else could be improved?
 * It is way too short. It definitely could be longer. Everything seems to be like a sentence summary of a long story.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Everything, including the story of creation, uses, and more information about the story would be very helpful. For a creation story I felt that the page for it was very short.

Article Selection
Article 1: Prince Hodong and the Princess of Nakrang


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It had more information about the Samguk Sagi (sub heading, background info) than the legend itself.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * It was written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Everything seems to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations look very very unreliable.

Articles that could be added: http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Culture/view?articleId=121980

https://academic.naver.com/article.naver?doc_id=236151383

Article 2: Cosmogony


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Since they are talking about people who gave the theology, there is some opinion.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * They do seem to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, they all seem to be books.

Article 3: Lono


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes but information seems to be cut into short summaries which makes it sounds more cold (like the story of Captain Cooke)
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * They all do but there is like a paragraph per citation which can allow for more influential opinions.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, they all seem to be book/reliable cites.

Princess Nakrang Edit for Citation
The Nakrang Kingdom was an ideal land that Goguryeo wanted to take over. However, Nakrang had a “Jamyeonggo,” which is a drum that played itself whenever danger approached. The purpose of it was to automatically ring when enemies approached. The success of the attack would depend on whether Goguryeo could remove this drum from Nakrang.

Liv's Edit

Lead Section: Your article has a really strong beginning and your sentences are written really well! I like the first sentence because it does a good job explaining what the legend is going to be about overall. I also like that you initially explained when the story took place and under which rule it occurred. I also like that you went on to explain different characters, and an overall synopsis of the article. However, I did get a little bit confused about the characters and locations since there is not any background on them. I suggest maybe adding in a summary subsection into your article so that those who have never heard of the story can get a good idea what it's about. Your lead section does reflect the most important information of the article and nothing seems redundant. Structure: When I first went onto your wikipedia page, I was really impressed by your structuring of your article. I like that you have 5 different sections, all with their own relevance. I also really like that you included other narratives and where this story can be seen in places other than a book. I also like that you added a notes section and that your list for it is pretty extensive. The sections are in a sensible order. Coverage: Each section is of a pretty good length and I think you did a good job balancing how long they are. Like I said earlier, I think that you should add a more extensive "summary" section so that readers who don't know about the story already can get a better gage for what the story's about. There aren't any unnecessary aspects of the article and I like that you added the "Other narratives" and "Nakrang Kingdom versus Leland Commandery section". Nothing is off-topic. I believe that the article reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature but my knowledge of this myth is limited so there may be other perspectives that I am missing. The article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. Content: I think you did a really good job with the amount of content you included thus far! You stayed neutral throughout your entire article and did kept all of your vocabulary and wording neutral as well. The article doesn't make claims on behalf of unnamed groups either. As I stated above, I think you should add a summary section. Sources: Both of your sources that I found in your references section look very reputable and reliable. Both of them are published by a credible agency. I think that there's a good balance of which of the sources you used to cite but I think that you may want to add a citation in under your lead section because there is a lot of information in there that you may have gotten from one or both of your sources.

Overall, I think you did a really nice job on your article thus far! I would suggest also that in "The Samguk Sagi", you add either the proper letter following (a.d., b.c., b.c.e. etc.) after 1145.