User:DaniSlice/sandbox

Week 6 Assignment "Peer Review"

Ifugao (Peer Reviewed: Perhaps adding more information on the archaeological implications of carbon dating that suggest the site being built later would help readers to understand if later means later in BC or AD. This article is heavily geared towards a historical approach rather than anthropological approach, so including more about the Ifugao people and customs associated with this region would be beneficial. The entire section on “Rice Culture” does not cite a single source, so providing more sources and citations here will help this section to be considered sound. DaniSlice (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC))

Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network (Peer Reviewed: The very first sentence needs a citation. The article suggest this theory is dominant but does not cite a source, which makes the statement appear biased and unfounded. Adding a credible source here will help make it a sound statement. Also a lot of the information is cited or at least put in parenthesis but no source at the end of the sentence, consider adding sources to these statements. More information on the history of the region, history of the Solheim, and an anthroplogical approach to understanding the people that were involved with this theory would be beneficial in understanding this article. Also, archaeological evidence should be provided to either support or deny the claims of Solheim.DaniSlice (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC) )

Week 5 Assignment Critically evaluating Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project

Explaining what ethnoarchaeologically is would be helpful in understanding what the study is

Understanding about the pottery and how it relates to household and kinship relationships

Expanding on the new archaeology that The Project engaged in

Week 4 Assignment Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project

Adding information about the climate would be helpful in understanding the production of pottery

History of the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project

Bibliography

Stark, and Skibo, Miriam, James (2007). A History of the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project.

Article Evaluation Angkor Wat

It would appear this article is extremely well written.  I only was distracted by two statements.  The fact that Theravada buddhism is not related to Hinduism, so why was the temple converted to Theravada Buddism?  Also, why Theravada instead of Mahayana Buddhism? Also, how did researchers know lions guarded the front gates?

There are a few claims that seem biased to show the temple as being extremely sophisticated, and advanced, though these claims are supported by citations.

The history of the temple is overrepresented and repeated throughout the article in different ways.

The citations link work properly, and the sources do support the claims in the article.

Yes each fact is cited with the appropriate reference.  Some sources appear to be more reliable and less bias than others.  Overall though the article provides facts not biased opinions.

I think this information is very up to date.  The article is well written and extremely long, so I do not believe there is anything that is missing.

There is a lot of conversation going on from behind the scene ranging from suggesting the page had been hacked to actual questions about the Temple.  Other people are also trying to clarify whether the Temple is a Hindu or Buddhist temple and why the change happened.  The Talk page provides more information that should be included or removed from the article.

The article is rated as FA.

I do not believe we have talked about this topic in class yet, so I’m unable to fully answer this question.