User:Berto 1012/sandbox

89.5% (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)

missing part of the quiz: -8

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

+There is no warning banner at the top of my article.

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?

-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?

In the lead section of the article "Music Perception" the author gives the reader a quick little lesson on how music is really important for infants and how they listen to music compared to adults. It was very clear and easy to understand for me, but I feel that one didn't have much experience in the field of music they could not understand all of which he is saying.

+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?”

Every time the author goes onto a new subject of the overall he give a heading of what he is going to talk about which makes looking for specific details very easy. He also provides a glossary with some music terms so that those without a knowledge of music to know them, as well as diagrams to give the reader a better understanding of the text.

+4. 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 article did a good job of giving people some background knowledge and keeping it balanced. So that the whole topic is easy to comprehend and read through with little to no trouble.

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

This article is not like a persuasive essay, It is set up to be informational so i would say it provides a neutral point, to let other make a decision.

+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 the references on this article look to be quite scholarly as it turns out. The article also gives us a list of suggested reading in the same topic.

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 correct english

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

I did not encounter any such opinions.

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

no, the article does not.

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

well i personally have some background in this field of music and i did not feel like i wasnt getting enough from the author.

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

Some sections are different in length, but that surely only because they are more important sections.

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

It does not.

-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?

__________________________

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 on April 30, 2017

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

In the wikipedia article there seems to be less trustworthy editors

+Relevance (to your research topic)

My research topic is How can music affect brain development in infants? and this one is music psychology so they are closely related.

+Depth

didn't go as deep as my other article but ht some important subjects

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

the information format is an article

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

to give people a background in music and how it can affect the brain.