User:Abrillopez/sandbox

Mid Term Quiz

'''Evaluate a Wikipedia article relevant to your own Research Topic: To earn credit for this Mid Term, you must complete Part 1 and Part 2. This exam should take you less than 2 hours to complete. Be sure to give yourself enough time. It must be completed by noon on Wed. 1 Feb. 2017.'''

1. Login to your own Wikipedia account, and click on Sandbox in the upper right part of the screen.

2. Then, in your Sandbox, click “Edit.” Click below the box that describes the Sandbox, then copy and paste the rest of this Mid-Term Quiz document into your sandbox.

3. Write your answers to these questions in your own Wikipedia Sandbox.

4. Click SAVE!

---

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

My Research Topic is: Concheros

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Aztec/Mayan Danza

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

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 banner is notifying readers that the article might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is important for readers to know because it gives them a heads up that it might not be the most credible article to be used.

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?

It is easy to understand and it does summarize key points.

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, it's clear and easy to understand.

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

Yes it does.

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

Very neutral, not once did I feel as if I was trying to be persuaded.

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.

Yes.

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?

It is well written but it is not completely in English because Concheros is a Spanish term hence the need for some Spanish terms but both languages are being properly used.

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

None that I noticed.

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

No, the authors were very good about labeling each group and/or person they spoke about as either Concheros or Dancers.

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

No, it hits every aspect briefly in my opinion.

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

The history and performance sections are a bit longer than any other section but it is because they are the most important and hold the most information. The costume section could have been longer but it does hit every main point.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

Could have included more 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 really aren't any conversation that have happened or that are going to happen. It simply shows each edit that has been made and that's about it.

__________________________

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)

The last update was December 13, 2017

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

The references used with in the article seem to be reliable which doesn't make me question the authors.

Relevance (to your research topic)

My topic is Conchers and the article is titled Concheros and it discusses concheros.

Depth

It could have gone deeper behind the meaning of the costumes but the rest of the information went pretty in depth.

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

The format was very easy and simply to use. I had no trouble finding the information that I needed.

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

The objective for this was to inform readers on Concheros; their history, performances, costumes, meaning etc.