User:Gi4462/sandbox

99 Mid Term Quiz [Part 1, each question is worth 3.8 % for full credit, for Part II, each question is work 5 % for full credit]
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016

3.8 My real name is: Jasmine Flowers

3.8 My Research Topic is: The effect of Negro Spirituals on Black church gospel.

3.8 + 2 Key words related to my Research Topic are: negro spirituals, black church, gospel Gospel_music

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.)

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

3.8 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 article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

3.8 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 warning matters because of the fact that anyone can post on Wiki. The accreditation of the topic is not present therefore readers cannot rely on it to be a correct source.

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.

3.8 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? •The lead section is easy to understand and it gives a good amount of back history and topics to know this goes well with my topic.

3.8 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 all of those are included in my chosen article.

3.8 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? •Yes it speaks on the ways gospel came to be in America, the origins, etc.

3.8 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? •From what I have read and my understanding, there is no bias form of work.

3.8 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 reliable sources in the footnotes.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating:

3.8 a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? •yes

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? •no the article more or less sounds like a scholarly report.

3.8 c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? •this article does well with using specific names.

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? •unclear of this question

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? •I personally feel like the roots and background section should be longer, but the others are of good length.

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? •no

3.8 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? •there are no hostile comments from the view history section

Part 2:

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

5 Currency (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History) •May 1, 2016

5 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) •To be honest I am not sure how to see who wrote it, or their information.

5 Relevance (to your research topic) •It is very spot on for what my topic is

5 Depth •It does not go into complete perfect depth, but it does go into the topic well enough

2 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) •The information is formatted very well and it is easy for me to find information. [The information format of this source is a website encyclopedia for the general public.]

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) •I am not sure if it is asking me about my article or the one I have just read.