User talk:Aamagett
Article evaluation
[edit]Sounion Kouros
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything is relevant to the topic. The article discusses the material of the Kouros, where it was discovered, and where it is now located.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article is neutral and only states facts.
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
The influence from Egyptian statues could be further addressed.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The links do work and are mostly traced back to Google eBooks. The sources support the claims made in the article but are much more detailed and informative.
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?
None of the facts are referenced appropriately. There are no in-text citations, just a bibliography.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The information is current.
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?
The article is part of the larger, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. The contributors are interested in the Classics but this article was probably overlooked.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
Start class.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The article addresses the Kouros is a very simplified way. It does not address at all the identity of the subject, heroic nudity, how it was cast, or how it fits into the cultural context nor does it discuss the Egyptian influence in depth.
Aamagett (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Aamagett, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Kate's Peer Review
[edit]After reviewing your progress on the article I've noticed a few things. The tone of the article so far is very neutral and encyclopedic, which is important. Overall I haven't seen many grammar or spelling errors, although I'm slightly confused by the sentence in your second paragraph where it says, " Anatomical features are suggested by surface marks, including eight compartments on the abdomen (more than the six that would be anatomically correct)." I feel like maybe the portion that is in parenthesis might not be the best way to word what you are saying. Maybe you can change the part in parenthesis to say "(six would be anatomically correct)" or "(having more than six makes it anatomically incorrect)". I'm not sure, maybe I misunderstood the sentence, but that's just a suggestion. Other than that, I think you're making good progress on your article.