User:Daisy-Valencia/sandbox

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016

My real name is: Daisy Valencia-Aguirre

My Research Topic is: How is art incorporated into religion

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Art, incorporated, religion

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:Religious Art

(for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article.

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

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

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed

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 chose Religious Art has the warning banner saying additional citations for verification. I believe that wikipedia wants the information to be a accurate as possible, so when they are unsure of the accuracy of the information they want to let the audience know. It matters to have these warning signs up because if people are given wrong information it looks bad on the website.

2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Yes, it is easy to understand.

Does it summarize the key points of the article? It does summarize the key points.

3. Is the structure of the article cLear? Yes, the article is clear after summarizing what the article is going to be about it break up into the different religions and how art is used.

“Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and foonotes 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 there is various aspects of the topic balanced well and provides comprehensive overview of the topic.

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

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 most of the citings are from universities and history books.

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

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 this article has enough 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? As I view the history there is no lack of respect for the editor. There is not a lot of comments.

__________________________

Part 2:

Evaluate the Wikipedia article you selected using the CARDIO method. Write your answers following each word below:

Currency-8 march 2016 (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History)

Authority- Not sure who the author is (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)

Relevance- This is very relevant to my topic. My topic is how is art incorporated into religion. (to your research topic)

Depth- This article does not really go into depth it briefly describes a few religions and the role of art in them.

Information Format -Professional/Expert publications(I hope this one will be easy for you.)

Object This article was made to inform people the different types of art in different religions and the significance. (what is the purpose for creating this article?)