User:Kero Keroro/sandbox

101.25% Good work! (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit) (btw, nice username. Makes me think of keroppi.

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2017

My Research Topic is: Spirituality and Healthcare

Keywords related to my Research Topic are: Spiritual healing, Healing, Faith healing, Miracle cures, John of God; medium

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.)

  Faith Healing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing) 

+1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article?

  No, there is no warning banner at the top of the article, but there seems to be on in the middle of the page that would like for me to add any secondary resources.  

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

  "This section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by 
        adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (September 2015)"

+Write a 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 banner mentions that some parts of the article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system and that they need help with referring to secondary resources to critically 
   analyze the article liability.

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. The article explains what " Faith healing" is in the context of religion and healthcare. It does summarize the key points that I had for my research.

+3. 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?”

  The structure of the article is very clear. It mentions what "Faith healing" is and where it began, and how it is still used to this day. t has many references from scholarly people. There are diagrams, and pictures, and may footnote in the end. I find it very useful.

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

  Yes, the topic is well balanced and well structures. SO far it is not hard to get lost in the information given because it is well organized and easy to read and understand.

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

  It has many points of views. As to who uses this way of healing and who does not like the idea of spiritual healing. I find the article very well done.

+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 can be cited and are reliable sources. The information is for scholarly individuals, but also the general public. Since the article is easy to understand I believe anyone interested can read it. Also, not just anyone will read it, anyone who is interested will look for the article.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating:

 I don't believe that there is bad quality to it, it just needs more references on the topic. The article was just modified on April 26, 2017

+a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English?

The lead section is very clear. It is well written, clear, and uses correct English.

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

There seem to be some unsourced opinions but I guess it will be fixed, and value statements are neutral since they are referenced correctly.

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

No. all the contributors are referenced at the end of the article and are correctly referred to.

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

Yes. This article does omit aspects of the topic I am working on.

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

Not overly long compares. The sections seem the same to me since the information is split kind of evenly in order to make it easier to read and understand.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

NO. There are plenty of references and 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?

There seems to be no hostile dialogue or lack of respectful treatment.

__________________________

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)

17:38, 26 April 2017‎ Just (talk | contribs)‎ . (74,770 bytes) (+348)‎ . . (→‎Catholicism: clarifications on RC) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) Some of their profiles tell me that some of the contributors study, but not much of information.

+Relevance (to your research topic) It has a lot of relevance to the research study I chose.

+Depth Th article goes very into depth on my research topic. To where the practice began, the different types of healing processes, etc.

~Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) The information format is well constructed and it is easy to understand the way it is being introduced.

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose of creating the article is to help people who want to look more into what type of research they are looking for. Many ideas come from many individuals that help another individual understand what they want to know.