User:Adman94/sandbox

99.33 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016

My real name is: Adeeb Rahman

My Research Topic is: Lucid Dreaming

Key words related to my Research Topic are: psychology, sleep*, lucid, dream*, conscious*, subconscious*

Part 1:

Examine Wikipedia articles that are directly related to your Research Topic and select a substantive article to evaluate. This could be an article about an idea (e.g., I might choose the one about Trance) or a person (if I were researching Reggae music, I might pick Bob Marley). Answer the following questions:

++ I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: Lucid Dream (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article. (Get your copy from the Reference Desk.)

+1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No

No

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

Warning banner from a different article: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.(March 2011)

Write a brief explanation of the reason the issues mentioned in the warning banner are important. For example, if the issue is “needs additional citations for verification,” why does that matter?

Please note: If the article you are evaluating does not have a warning banner, choose a warning banner from a different article and explain the warning that is in that banner.

+ The reason the issue mentioned in the warning banner is important because it might contain inclined or biased viewpoint in favor of the subject matter. This would make the article misleading and flawed. As indicated in the warning banner that the contributor might be familiar with the subject, so the individual can modify facts and specific details based on their personal opinion in order to defend or attack the subject. This would cause the article to lose authenticity and weaken it.

+ 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?

Yes, the lead section was very clear, precise and posed sufficient background information along with different perspectives on the topic. The inclusion of one Greek Philosopher Aristotle's observation on the topic evidently strengthens the introduction. It very effectively summarizes the key idea of the article. For example, it talks about the direct relation of sleep with dream and how the brain activities are related and influenced by dreaming. Moreover, it presents an interestingly surprising fact that lucid dreaming is not a state of sleep, but a moment of brief wakefulness.

+ 3. Is the structure of the article clear? “Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end?”

The structure is very well organized. The introduction instantly attracts the readers attention which is reinforced by the ancient pictorial illustration. As we move along the article, we learn about the scientific history of lucid dreaming, its initiation and research and clinical application. Not only that, it provides a section of constructive criticism through the skepticism of the phenomenon. Then it talks about the cultural history of lucid dreaming and other fascinating experience associated with lucid dreams like, false awakening, out-of-body experience and few others.

+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?

The balance of information is very systematic and efficient. As one can figure out by looking into the article that it is quite small compared to other articles. However, it contains all the key points and crucial information necessary to provide the reader a basic and intermediate knowledge about what "lucid dreaming" is. The conciseness prevent the readers to get drifted away by boredom and retain all the important information for a long time.

+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?

The article surely provides a "neutral point of view". Its main focus is more inclined towards informing the readers about lucid dreaming rather than persuading with a certain concept or belief about lucid dreams in popular culture.

+ 6. Are the references and footnotes citing reliable sources? Do they point to scholarly and trustworthy information? Beware of references to blogs; look for references to books, scholarly journal articles, government sources, etc.

Yes, the references and footnotes citing seems pretty reliable sources. I, personally, looked up some of the references and they led to specific and relevant articles and sources. The definition of lucid dreaming is mostly derived from a 1999 book by Kelly Bulkeley with an interesting title Visions of the night: dreams, religion and psychology. Moreover, the article also referred to some of the films and documentaries related to lucid dreams.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating:

+ a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English?

The lead section is very well written, clear and the grammar is very academic. Evidences are words like "lucidity" and "skeptics".

+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?

As the article is more emphasized on information, it discusses mostly about incidents and stories so there is less room for opinions. Overall, I can see the article having a very neutral approach.

+ c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?

All the characters and people mentioned are also linked to other articles, so that we can find out more about them. I haven't found any anonymous group or individual that is mentioned.

+ d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?

I don't think the article overlooks any major aspects related to the topic. It even has a section at the end about prevalence and ways it is interpreted in recent times. And, even if it does misses out some details and specifics, I'm sure they can be found within the long list of preferences provided.

+ e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?

The "Cultural History" section takes up a big percentage of the article compared to the other section. But we all understand that it usually takes a lot of space to reiterate history because of the time frame involved. So, I think it can be clearly justified.

+ f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

There are not many footnotes but every unfamiliar words are linked to another article that would provide a better understanding of the term or concept. The references are sufficient enough.

+ g. Look at the “View History” for the article. As you read the conversation there, do you see hostile dialogue or other evidence of lack of respectful treatment among the editors?

No, I haven't noticed any hostile dialogue among the editors; rather, there is constructive and positive criticism. There are lot of "undid revision" and "reverted edits" which clearly concludes that the article is maintained with a high level of precision and accuracy. Not many counterarguments have been strong enough to cause major changes in the article.

__________________________

Part 2:

Evaluate the Wikipedia article you selected using the CARDIO method. Write your answers following each word below:

+ Currency (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History)

There was a "fixed typo" on 23:32, 1 February, 2016. That was the latest update

+ Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)

The references and citations have higher degree of accuracy and there isn't any major disagreements in the history of editors. If the author(s) wouldn't have appropriate credentials, there would have been lot of dismissive conflicts and arguments going on among the editors, which is not the case. Few grammatical mistakes and unnecessary information are revised in most of the areas.

+ Relevance (to your research topic)

The article is exactly based on my research topic and all the information are useful and noteworthy. So, it is very much relevant.

+ Depth

The topic has been viewed and discussed from a wide range of perspectives which clearly shows its depth. This allows readers from various cultures and beliefs to relate with the topic and at the same time forces them to think critically about whether to reconsider their perspectives.

| Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

Online article

Wikipedia contributors. "Lucid dream." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Feb. 2016. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.

+ Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?)

To inform the reader about the basics of lucid dream, provide background and historical information and its influence and research in recent times.