User:Iahumada96/sandbox

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Fall 2015

My real name is: Ivan Ahumada

My Research Topic is:How music and religon connect.

Key words related to my Research Topic are:connect , music, religion

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.)

Gospel music

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

yes

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

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2014)

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 warnings that are in that banner.

This is important because if everything on the article is backed up it is more likely for people to find it reliable. It is also more trustworthy.

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

It is all written in easy context making it very easy to understand.

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?”

It is very clear since its talking about several time periods there all separated and have different heading and even some pictures involved.

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

Yes its all seprearted and everything is written in orrder.

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

It most certainly does not look like a persuasive it is well structured and has lots of information. The article talks about different religions and there musc. it doesn't only talk about a certain religon or type of music. it also changes the types of music in different time periods.

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.

Heres the problem it has lots of information but some of it is missing citations. Most of its information is backed up still making it reliable.

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 there is proper english being used.

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

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

Not really the article actually is very specific with whom its referring too.

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

No the article seems to state a good chunk of information. i hardly think there leaving anything out.

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

All paragraphs seem to be around the same lenghth.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

The article has a good amount of references.

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?

Its really shocking instead of people being rude to eachothere there all including information that can be useful for the article. working as a team.