User:Ciaoyen/sandbox

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

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Fall 2015

My real name is:Venus Chao

My Research Topic is: How does dance make people feel spiritual?

Key words related to my Research Topic are: dance and spirituality

Next 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.)

Circle dance

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article. (Get your copy from the Reference Desk.)

1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No

No.

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

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 reasons in the warning banner are important because the current editors might be having a disagreement about the article but new or unregistered users can still make a change by submitting an edit request.

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 warnings that are in that banner.

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

The lead section of the article is easy to understand and 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 footnotes at the end?”

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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?

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?

No, the article uses facts mostly and calls groups of people by the name of their country or origin like Armenians.

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

No.

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

No.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

No.

g. Look at the Talk Page 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 see a bit of lack of respect when one of the editors had omitted a reference without discussing it with the other editors.