User:Raquelrod26/sandbox

90 % TB

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

My Research Topic is: Self-Awareness

Key words related to my Research Topic are:

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.)

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 has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2009)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (May 2009)

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?

• The article shows this banner because it needs help by the experts. It needs help to attention in order to become a better article. The articles information needs to be more clear and organized.

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?

• No it is not. The main points do not add up to the rest of the article. It needs more structure.

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?”

• The structure to this article is clear by its headers and diagrams that it displays.

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

• The topics need more work in which it needs a better flow. The ideas seem scrambled and not well thought out. It does provide a comprehensive overview.

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

• The articles point of view is fairly neutral. It reads like a 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.

• The references and footnotes do seem reliable. Yes they point out scholarly information.

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

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

• No, it is neutral

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

• No, the article states facts from the sources.

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

• Yes, it does omit aspects of the topic into the rest of the article.

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

• Yes, there is one concerning animals that did cause some confusion.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

• No

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?

• The comments seem suggestive and professional. There is no disrespect that I had seen while looking through. The editors are giving the author critics on their article very nicely.

__________________________

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)

• October 2, 2016

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

• I do not think they have appropriate credentials. They know their material based on the article but the article seems to be more as an essay in this case.

Relevance (to your research topic)

• I was a bit disappointed at the article because there was not much about my topic that I was looking for.

Depth

• It went in depth when it came to the science side of things.

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

• I did retain a lot of information from this article. The format of it could have been different and better organized.

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

• The purpose was to dig a bit deeper about "Self-Awareness" and that is what the author did.