Student at CSU Eastbay class of 2020
California State University, East Bay
 | This is a user sandbox of CiennaWelch24. 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. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88.75% (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2017
-My Research Topic is:
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
No
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?
+The warning label matters because it lets to know that there is sensitive material in this article that maybe not everyone can read.
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 beginning of the article is easy to understand. The beginning of the article is what gives the definition of whatever it is that was looked up in the search bar, then goes into background information 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?”
The structure is very clear, it flows well. There are many headings, subheadings, footnotes, images, and everything needed when moving from one point to the next smoothly.
+4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?
It gives a well thought out summary of the topic and everything that I need to know for the topic.
+5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?
The point of view of the article is very neutral. There is no bias no opinion about how the author of the article feels about the subject at hand. The article is very straight forward and factual.
+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.
Some of the footnotes lead to journal articles, others lead to scholarly articles and some lead to other Wikipedia pages.
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?
The lead section is well written and very comprehensible.
+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?
The article only addresses the specific organizations, author, or facts.
+d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?
The article very short and doesn't seem to give everything about the topic but has many highlighted words throughout the article that lead to other articles about the topic.
+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?
There is only one section of the article that is extremely short that I feel should be a bit longer that I feel would have more significance to the article.
+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?
The article doesn't lack references but I feel it lacks footnotes.
+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?
In the "View History" there is no hostile or rude comments or dialogue shared with or to others by the author.
__________________________
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)
22 April 2017
+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)
The authors don't give much on the credentials that they need so there is not really a way of knowing if they have credentials to write this article.
+Relevance (to your research topic)
The article is the Catholic Church which relates to my topic because my topic is about the Catholic Church and sex.
+Depth
The depth of the article isn't much but it does give some key elements about the main topic and many key words in the article that branch off to other things.
-Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)
The way that the information is formatted is easy to understand and flows from topic to topic well.
+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?)
The purpose of creating this article is so that others know about about the Catholic Church.