User talk:Auwazzz/sandbox
106 % TB Information Literacy: learning throughout your life. 18:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daifukuthecat (talk • contribs)
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016
My Research Topic is: Ancient Egyptian Religion
Key words related to my Research Topic are: Afterlife in Ancient Egyptian religion, Ancient Egyptian funerary practices, Mummy 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: [Egyptian Concept of the Soul] (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
If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here. This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
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 has unclear sources and insufficient inline citations, so the warning is important for anyone who needs to make sure their information is correct because the information could possibly be incorrect or not from a reliable source.
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? The lead section is easy to understand, but is slightly too vague. The majority of the key points are summarized but could use more depth. 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, the article contains all of the mentioned aspects. The structure is organized with headings for each topic. 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? The overview provides a substantial definition and meaning for each topic, however the article is lacking depth and could use more examples. 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Yes, the article is neutral and unbiased. The article was not persuasive. 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. All of the references lead to scholarly journals, encyclopedias, and academic websites and 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 the article is well-written in clear English. b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No, there are none present. c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? No, there are clear authors and references d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Nothing is completely omitted, all aspects are addressed however more depth and examples could be used. e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes, some sections are almost triple the length of others. f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? The article has a substantial amount of references. 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 are a few comments that are rude and/or irrelevant. __________________________
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) September 5, 2016.
Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) The author is listed as " Wikipedia contributors", and does not provide any name or creditials.
Relevance (to your research topic) The Ancient Egyptian beliefs of the soul are apart of their religious belief system, this directly relates and is relevant to my topic "Ancient Egyptian Religion".
Depth This article is sufficient if I wanted to define specific terms or give an overview on the Egyptian beliefs of the soul, however for any in-depth information, I would need to look elsewhere.
Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) This source would most likely be categorized as a general audience website.
Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) This article was created to objectively inform an audience interested Ancient Egyptian religion, about the Egyptian beliefs of the human soul.
Start a discussion about improving the User:Auwazzz/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Auwazzz/sandbox" page.
