User talk:DaniSlice
| This user is a student editor in UCLA/Anthropology_116S_(Winter) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, DaniSlice, 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) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, it was nice video chatting with you!!! Good luck in class!Jennifermead96 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Jennifermead96 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Jennifermead96 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
[edit]Article Evaluation[edit] 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.