User:Sesxb7/sandbox
This is my sandbox. Can I see this?
My name is Savannah. I am a Technical Communication major. I am taking this class because I liked History of Science in Latin America last semester!
 | This is a user sandbox of Sesxb7. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
| This is a user sandbox of Sesxb7. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Article Choice[edit]
We chose to edit the Pneumatic Chemistry article. We did this one over the one on Avicennism because if we had done that one, we would have basically been doing a brand new article, while this one has more interesting information to expand upon and rearrange. We want to make a new section on contributors to the field, as well as making a history section and then separating by century.
~~~~
Article evaluation[edit]
I am evaluating the article Avicennism.
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
— Everything seems to be relevant.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
— There are so few viewpoints that it is very difficult to really even understand what Avicennism is. The links are to books, but two of the links are to the same book, and could probably be combined into one.
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?
— There are reliable resources being used, but there is so little to work with that more research and writing would definitely need to be done.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
— There is so much that could be added, for instance the history, legacy, and what Avicenna was drawing from to begin with.
Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
— There seems to have been a lot of arguing on the talk page about the importance of the article itself.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
— We’ve not discussed it so I’m not sure.