Mahopp
Welcome!
editHello, Mahopp, 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) 17:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
editThe article is very well-structured and organized. However, since the article is meant to be factual there should not be "we" incorporated. In the Christian Europe section there is a sentence that states "The characteristics that we associate today with a university...". This is both bias and the writer is adding in content that includes themselves and is personal. For a historical and professional description this should not be included. In the Hellenism section, the last sentence does not include a source which is problematic and there is also a sentence that states that "The engineer Ctesibius (fl. 285–222 BC) may have been its first head". This fact is clearly not known to be completely true so there is no reason to even put it into the article as there is no relevance. In the Nalanda section there is a sentence claiming that Nalanda had dormitories that were "perhaps a first for an educational institution." This is not backed up with a source and is simply a prediction from the writer. If there is factual evidence that points to the fact that it was the first, then the sentence should be worded differently and it should have a citation at the end. If there is no evidence then it should not be mentioned at all in the article if it is merely opinion-based. Perhaps is again mentioned in the Taxilla section. The sentence is that "Takshashila is perhaps best known because of its association with Chanakya." Since this is an informational article, perhaps shouldn't be mentioned. If there is indeed a source to back up that Takshashila is best known for its association with Chanakya then it shouldn't be something that needs to be pondered on. Many of the sources were very reliable, however the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy appears to be less of a reliable source. Mahopp (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)