User:Brother afro/sandbox
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Fall 2015
My real name is: Alejandro Gomez Villarreal
My Research Topic is: Shamanism
Key words related to my Research Topic are: Shaman or Shamanism
Next 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.)
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.
| This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (April 2010) |
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? This is a total different article that is irrelevant to my research topic and name is,
Mobile Suit Gundam 00
[edit]the only thing wrong from this article and reason to need a warning banner because it is pretty outdated. The author and or editor of this article has not been keeping up with this article and putting in new or current events in this article. It matter and place a big singificant role because old data and information does not have any use for us. That is because any old use can be proven false in upcoming future.
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 warnings that are in that banner.
2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes the lead section of this article, is pretty simple to understand. But also does not provide summarize the key points of this article instead just talks about the history and origin of shamanism.
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?”
Yes, the structure of this article is clear. The article goes by chronological order and have smooth transition to key point to key point. All the heading, sub heading, images, diagrams are at the appropriate place and seem to correspond to their topic or main purpose of this article.
4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?
Yes, the article is very comprehensive and every key point support the article and is not irrelevant.
5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?
Yes, the article does read like an encyclopedia instead of a biased persuasive essay
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 article has strong references with the work cited area and the footnotes with reliable resources. There is a lot of trustworthy information such as references to book and scholarly journal articles.
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? Yes, the lead section of this article was extremely well written and use correct grammar, punctuation and correct English.
b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No, the article has been analyzed several times and has been label as a "good article" symbol on the far right of the article.
c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? Yes, the groups states, "Shamans" multiple times throughout this article, because my research topic is about shamanism.
d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? No, the article clearly gives out a great overview of my topic.
e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes, some section are a bit to long but that is only because that section of article has some information and more example to fully grasp the reader interpretation and knowledge.
f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No, the article does not lack any references or footnotes. No, the article does not lack sufficient references or footnotes because it has cited all if not most of it sources
g. Look at the Talk Page 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, all dialogue written for this talk page was formal and mature towards the editor/author of this article. If there was a section where the author needed improvement the editors will formally addressed it.
 | This is a user sandbox of Brother afro. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. |