User:Viviansan/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Viviansan. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
93.5 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016
My real name is: Vivian Hoang
My Research Topic is: Spirits in China
Key words related to my Research Topic are: Chinese spirits
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.) Hungry Ghost
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 but it is suggested to be merged with another page.
| If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.
| It has been suggested that this article be merged into preta. (Discuss) Proposed since July 2015. |
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.
+ 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes it is easy to understand and it summarizes the key points of the article.
+ 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. There are headings and subheadings per paragraph. There are 17 footnotes. Images are appropriately placed.
+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Yes they include different topics that are related to the general topic of hungry ghosts.
+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Yes, it is not being bias but rather it is stating the facts/information.
+ 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. There are some internet sources but there are also scholarly books.
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.
+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No it is very neutral.
+ c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? The article referred to Taoist people, so that was a good quality.
+ 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 the overall article is fairly short but straight forward.
+ 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?
__________________________ No everyone seems calm and respectful about the choices made on this page.
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) 26 October 2015
+ 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 see the specific credentials but I do see that some of the editors have been editing for wikipedia for a long time.
+ Relevance (to your research topic) Very relevant.
- Depth. Yes it is scholarly.
+ Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) General audience website.
+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To let people know more about the hungry ghost that are believed in by the buddhist religion.