User:Noelliem2/sandbox

Swimmers are outstanding athletes.

96.2 Mid Term Quiz [Part 1, each question is worth 3.8 % for full credit, for Part II, each question is work 5 % for full credit]

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

3.8 My real name is: Noelle Farrar

3.8 My Research Topic is: How does spirituality/religion support healing?

3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: spirituality; and healing

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:

3.8 I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) -Energy (esotericism)

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article.

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

3.0 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. -Because not all the information may be accurate or pertain to the words searched.

3.8 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? -Yes, it talked about my research topic and answered some questions I was having without even reading the whole article.

3.8 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 clear, not too many headings but enough to be organized. There are two images and they are in appropriate places. There are appendices and footnotes at the end.

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

3.8 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? -It is strictly informative.

3.8 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 are trustworthy.

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

3.8 a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? -Yes, the grammar is correct, and it was easy to read with good information.

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? -No, it seemed mainly informative and there were lots of sources and references.

3.8 c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? -No, for the most part they are people who wrote a book together.

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? -It does a little, but not too much. It is still a useful article.

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? -There aren't any overly long but there are some shorter sections.

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? -The article does not lack sufficient references or footnotes.

3.8 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 did not see anything hostile.

__________________________

Part 2:

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

5 Currency (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History) -2016

5 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) -Some are authors of other books, and other information retrieved from websites are from credible ones with ".org".

5 Relevance (to your research topic) -Very relevant, talks a lot about spirituality and how positive energy can help a person heal.

5 Depth -It doesn't go too into depth nor is it very long but it has some good information.

2 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) -It gives a short abstract like briefing at the beginning and talks a little about the history behind it.[The information format for this source is a website encyclopedia for the general public.]

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) -The purpose is to inform the public about spirituality and the energy it can bring to people who are healing and how it can help them.