User:Ailingc96/sandbox

91.67 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit

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

My real name is: Ailing Cheng

My Research Topic is: Impact of spirituality

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Spirituality, ethics, behavior lifestyle

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: Spirituality and homelessness

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? No

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

Write an 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. There is a warning banner for Celebrity, which states that the examples and points of view deal with the Western culture and is does not give a worldwide view of what the subject is about. It also may provide unbalanced and inaccurate information.

+ 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? This article gives good key points, and summarizes the main points of what is explained in the article overall.

+ 3. Is the structure of the article clear? “Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and foonotes at the end?” This article provides subheadings and headings it does include one picture, but it could include more diagrams and pictures to go along with its material.

+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? This Wikipedia article seems to have an understanding of the topic provided, it has included various references and statistics to prove its point of view. It also seems to have a grasp on what it is focusing on and goes along with the overview it provided.

+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? This article seems to provide a neutral point of view and mostly states information about the subheadings it provides. It mostly informs the reader of the topic, and does not persuade them to take action.

+ 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 footnotes are reliable, this article includes health journals, social work research, and journals on religious health.

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 English is correct in the article and so far has no grammar mistakes.

+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? There seemed to be very few opinions in this article and focused more on providing information from the references that is cited.

+ c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? This article refers to spiritual groups and homeless people,but it does not refer to the authors of the cited work directly.

+ d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? This article does not seem to omit certain aspects in the topic, it address every subheading well and provides evidence from its references.

+ e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? There are some subsections that are longer than the rest of the other sections in the article. It does relate to the main topic, it gives more depth of specific areas that the topic can relate too.

+ f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? This article does not lack specific references or footnotes.

+ 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? There doesn't seem to be hostile dialogue, more so there seems to be confusion on what the article is talking about in previous edits.

__________________________

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) December 3, 2014

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

+ Relevance (to your research topic) It discusses a point of view that goes along with my research topic, if spirituality has an impact on daily life.

+ Depth : It provides well devolved topics that go in detail of the topics that are provided, it gives detail and evidence to back its information.

- Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) The format was easy to look through and was well developed.

+ Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To inform readers on how spirituality and homelessness go together and, how it has an impact on different genders and age groups.