User:Chrisjscarver/sandbox

My name is Chris Scarver ---

'''91.25% Good work! (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)'''

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

My Research Topic is: Perception / Nature vs Nurture

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Creativity, Influence, Environment

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: ( Evolutionary Psychology )

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

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here. '''This is the current revision of this page, as edited by  Chiswick Chap  (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 13 April 2017 (→‎Theoretical foundations: rm scare quotes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.'''

+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 issue in the warning banner is that the article was revised April 13th. There could be updated wrong or correct information.

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, the lead section of the article is easy to understand and I believe it summarizes the 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, the structure of the article is clear.

+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 various aspects of the topic balanced well and seems to provide a comprehensive overview 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 article is very neutral to me with lots of interesting information. This article definitely reads like an encyclopedia rather a persuasive essay.

+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, there are a lot of references and footnotes and these sources or reliable pointing to scholarly information.

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

+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 does both.

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

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

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? Not at all

+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? I don't see any lack of respect in my opinion. There was all fair conversation.

__________________________

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) 18:02, 13 April 2017‎

~Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) They have written many articles and/or have awards.

+Relevance (to your research topic) My topic is about perception and this article is about evolutionary psychology. I believe they are directly related.

+Depth Yes

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

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To talk about evolutionary psychology and other aspect around this topic.