User:Nuhspiders/sandbox

86% + =correct | = mostly correct - = incorrect

Subject: church/sacred architecture

Related topics: sacred architecture; belief; church; temple;

basilica; cathedral; meditation hall; mosques; synagogue;

zendo

+ ++1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: Zendo (link included) [Great choice!-TB]

+ -2. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? No

+3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes, it talks about the reasons why it is sacred and meals given.

+4. 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?” Yes, there are some headings and one footnote

+5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? I feel like there should be more information about zendos.

+6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? It is neutral.

+7. 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, it is citing a book about Zen Buddhism by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki

8. 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

+b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? It refers to the Chinese and Japanese people as this is their culture

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

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? No

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? It only has one footnote and resource so yes it is lacking.

+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 nothing disrespectful, just more additions to the article.

+Currency: It was made in 2006 and last updated in October 2016

-Authority: He is an author and is proper to write this because he himself has observed Zen and Buddhism for much of his life From what I see in the Edit History page, I am not finding credentials for the author(s).

+Relevance: Has to do with the art of religion/spirituality

+Depth: Did not go too deep into the subject but did give good information

-Information format: Scholarly Article Because this is an encyclopedia article for the general public, it is not a scholarly article.

+Object: To offer more knowledge about Zen Buddhism and Zendos