User:Antwooon11/sandbox

103 % + =correct | = mostly correct - = incorrect

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-15 Fall 2017

My Research Topic is: Speaking in Tongues

Key words related to my Research Topic are: speaking in tongues; glossolalia; Pentecostal; charismatic; trance

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:

+1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

- Glossolalia

++- LINK: Glossolalia

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

+- No , and I kept searching through each key words for a banner and none of them had one except for trance. I tried to avoid using trance since it was the example one but I had to look for a warning banner to use.

+If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here. *WARNING BANNER FROM  TRANCE  ARTICLE* 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.

+ The article I am evaluating, Glossolalia: Christianity, does not have a warning banner; but the other article I looked up for Trance had one. The issues mention in the warning banner are important because not only does it have one issue, it clearly says that it has MULTIPLE. One of them being "needs additional citations for verification", which is important to look out at because it shows that the people who were editing it may have just said information they think and might not be true because they don't have evidence or support to show that it's factual. As for the "possibly contains original research" part, that shows that the editors may be plagiarizing and doing the worse thing ever, copying and pasting other people's work and not giving them credit for their information which leads back to additional citations. These warning banners matter because they allow anyone who researches that topic to be aware that the information they look at in the article below doesn't have that much support behind it.

+3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?

- Yes the lead section of the article is easy to understand and gives a summary of the key points of the article. I found the lead section to be useful of what I am going to further read about later in the article and in the subsections and how it can been seen through a Christian perspective and a non-Christian perspective.

+4. 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?”

- I found the structure of the article to be clear. There were a good 10 headings and only like 3-4 subheadings in like 3 of the headings so it wasn't that bad. Each of the headings and subheadings were interesting to me because they were all different aspects for my research so it didn't seem irrelevant.

+5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?

- I thought the various aspects were pretty well balanced and seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic because the article gave linguistics and history of it and then how its seen in a Christian and non-Christian perspective and other information of it as well so it had sides of being religious and not religious which was a positive component since many people would think speaking in tongues is a religious practice.

+6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?

- Yes the article provides a "neutral point of view", like said in the previous question, there's a section of Christian side and a non-christian side. The article reads more like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay because it's not pushing the readers who looks at it to perform speaking in tongues nor show steps how to do it.

+7. 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 the references and footnotes citing are reliable sources and point to scholarly and trustworthy information. Towards the bottom there are roughly more than 50 footnotes but only one reference, but happens to be a representative from Yale University Press and many sources and extra places to hunt even more information on Glossolalia.

8. 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 lead section is clear and well written in English with some understanding of Greek

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

- There are some sentences that says "citations needed"

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

- No it references different people and authors

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

- Nope

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

- All the sections are evenly proportioned but it's understandable of why some sections are longer than others

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

- Nope it has a lot of them!

+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 no harsh comments in the "View History" section, many of the edits would be updates on information alongside fixing typos

__________________________

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 time this article was updated was: 10 October 2017, at 00:24.

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

- I did not find any evidence of the credentials of the authors who wrote on this topic

+Relevance (to your research topic)

- This article was highly relevant if anything is the topic of my research project and gave me lots of information alongside useful and helpful sources I can look deeper into for my overall final of this project.

+Depth

- The information given in this article was helpful but I know looking at the other sources given, I can get a better understanding from websites that end in .edu or from a scholarly website

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

- Well what caught my attention for this source was of course because of this assignment. Like said, wikipedia is a public encyclopedia where anyone can edit the information put in it.

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

- To give people like me, an overlook of what Glossolalia is and how it came to be. The purpose of this article was to give readers background information of how it is still an occurring topic in some cultures and how people perceive it as.