User:EG765890/sandbox

'''106.26% Good work! (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)'''My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2017

My Research Topic is: connections among visual art and music

Key words related to my Research Topic are: John Cage; Robert Rauschenberg; Silence; 4'33'; White Paintings; Marcel Duchamp; Dadaism; Zen

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.) -Robert Rauschenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No -Yes If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

-"Rauschenberg" redirects here. For other uses, see Rauschenberg (disambiguation).

+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 reader needs to know that the article about Robert Rauschenberg is not the only one. There can be other people with the same last name or a company/organization with the same name. Rauschenberg does not have to be exclusive to him.

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 article talks about him and about him, his work, his claim to fame, his pieces, his awards, his media, and everything ever after.

+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, there are enough headings and subheadings to indicate what was famous within the headings about his work.

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

-Yes, I got to hear about his work and at what events he was called in to speak about his work and accomplishments.

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

-Yes, because I am making my own interpretation of the facts. Nothing in this is making me feel but think. I am hearing purely of him, not biased positive or negative connotative words such as good or bad.

+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.

-Much of it is scholarly. Some of it is popular, like Time Magazine or the New York Times. But I am sure it is important that there is some info that is enough for the general audiences too.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: -There are no blogs.

+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?

-Not overly long. The section about artistic contribution is quite long compared to the other headings but it is possible that his resume has more in that area.

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

-No, not at all. There are plenty of sources.

+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 saw that there was some indirect hostility with the ablist language "afflicted with dyslexia" until November 30, 2016 when it said he "was dyslexic" so it clarified that dyslexia was not something that is the end of the world. On November 22, 2016 on 19:44 (7:44 PM) Qzd removed vandalism done by another individual one minute prior. Most of these edits are clean and helped with the flow of the article.

__________________________

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) May 4, 2017 at 16:56 (4:56 PM)

+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) There are enough sources in the references and footnotes so we always need sources and prior knowledge that can be backed up with credible sources.

+Relevance (to your research topic) My topic is on visual art and its connection to music so to learn about his work on dance sets and art helped.

+Depth This information is extensive and covers his pieces and contributions. This is enough information that can be used for my analysis.

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

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose is to know about Robert Rauschenberg and so people can do proper research about this artist. His work can improve upon existing art concepts so it creates a broader gamut for what is art. Art is ever-evolving. Everyone has their own knowledge and style so everyone brings more to the field.