User:Alohaalessandra/sandbox

95.03 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit

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

• Answers are BOLDED

My real name is: Anaei Guzman

My Research Topic is: Spiritual Leadership

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Spirituality, leader

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: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

Workplace Spirituality link

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

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

Warning Banner:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

+ 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?

1. "require clean-up", this article is too scattered, unorganized to what is expected from the Wikipedia site. Possibly difficult for viewers to understand. This could also apply to the warning "may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines"
2. "content written like an advertisement", maybe parts of the article does not sound real, or genuine, or it either does contain things written alike an advertisement that was not cited?
3. "lead section may need to be re-written" meaning the section that is most important to the reader should be valid information.

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.

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

It actually is not easy to understand. The article goes off topic, and it is very hard whether to believe the information in the article because we do not know if it is valid. It does not sound professional either.

+ 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?”

There are several quotes, several resources from who talks about spiritual leadership in the workplace but it does not go further. It has no footnote at the end of the paragraph.

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

No it does not, I would expect the article to cover more information about Spiritual Leadership but it only covers the time it started and who talked about it in their books. I would have liked to know more information on that. It is not balanced.

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

No, the article does target a specific groups, using specific words such as "destroyed."

+ 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.

There are few cited sources that link up to pages that are not even found any longer. There are also pages that are used that are irrelevant.

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?

No it is not well written, it is scattered. Though it is in clear English.

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

They are sourced, the article does mention whom had said this or that.

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

Yes, throughout the article, in the definition area, the bullet points: there are unnamed groups, not specific.

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

Yes, the article seems to go off topic. It seems to explain that this state of being is a "trend."

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

Yes there are unnecessarily long areas. Some points just need to be said and there, not further talked about. That can be good but in this case the person went off topic.

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

Yes.

+ 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 is just lack of dialogue. There are areas where they only suggest to fix some things 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)

June 2015

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

Author OF the article used Evidence from books of professors, and business men and women. Considering workplace spirituality.

+ Relevance (to your research topic)

It is quite relevant. I wanted to know more about how or why people react a certain way in the business area. I am not working at the moment but I thought it related to the classroom, where it should also be taken seriously.

+ Depth

The vocabulary used just throws the information off. If the article sounds well-written then it sounds believable. If it were written better, it would reach to a mature adult audience.

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

This is article would be under: Scholarly Journal Articles- Research Article.

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

To inform the audience the reason for the human spirituality in the workplace. That there are several personalities in the workplace.