User talk:Vai29/sandbox/draft

"Cosmogony as scientists and scholars understand today is considered to be empirical. However, Cosmogony does not only involve empirical science, but is very much involved in mythology." The first sentence doesn't seem so important that it should be the opening line for cosmogony. If you feel it is necessary information, maybe combine it with the following sentence. Consider: "Cosmogony is a part of empirical science and mythology."

"Creation myths vary, not all cultures have the same creation myth, but they may share a similar symbol or deity." I would delete the part I bolded because it is just another way of saying the first part of the sentence.

"For example, in Odysseus's escape from the cyclops, Polyphemus; Polyphemus calls out his father, Poseidon god of sea for help." This sentence is a little cluttered. Consider: "For example, in Odysseus' escape from Polyphemus, Polyphemus calls out to Poseidon for help." You can make their names live links if you'd like so you don't have to explain in this particular article.

"As in the African myth from the Dogon referred to above, sexual union is a sign of androgyny (being both male and female) and androgyny, in turn, a sign of perfection. The indifference of the world parents is thus not simply a sign of ignorance but equally of the silence of perfection." I'm not sure what is trying to be conveyed in these sentences. Consider rewording it or reconstructing it for a clearer message.

More notes: -Is there a better way to say "world parents"? -Where are your sources for the second half of your draft? -Have you thought about how your sections will fit in with the current page of "cosmogony"? Will you be deleting or replacing any of the already existing page?


 * Thanks for your feedback, Skalaola, and your specific suggestions for grammatical improvement. Vai29 I think these are good places to begin, and the general takeaway here may be to state things as simply and in as straightforward a way as possible. This can be really tough with such a cerebral and complex topic, but I think the work you've done so far is a really important addition to the page (and provides a nice link between science and the humanities). The last two questions posed to you are especially important, because as you go forward with this article I'd like to see you incorporate many more sources for cosmogony in myth. I also think that you'll need to think about the last question posed to you over the next few days, specifically how this will all fit into the larger page and how you can improve the page as a whole by adding your sections in. Overall, I really like the direction you're taking with this article and the focus on the connections between myth and the creation of the universe, keep up the good work. Gardneca (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Skalaola and Gardneca, Thank you for your feedback! They have been extremely useful in going forth with editing the "cosmogony" article. Vai29 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)