User:Gloriacaldas/sandbox

70.8 TB
My Research Topic is: History, beliefs, and spiritual perspective of religion

+Key words related to my Research Topic are: Buddhism

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.)

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

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

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?

No

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? The blue writing within the passage causes a distraction as well as the reference numbers placed after certain words or sentences. Other than that, the passage is self explanatory and sets up the pace for the rest of the article.

+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, its extremely easy to maneuver around the article and easily find what you need. Theres all that was mentioned: Headings, subheadings, charts, diagrams, explained images, defined words on the side, and references.

+4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Yes, in goes into depth about history, school, traditions, devotion, teachings, and above all else, the different types of gods that are worshiped. Because my key word "Buddhism" is so broad, these topics are balanced well because its all explained.

+5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Its unbiased throughout the entire passage. Its more of an informative writing.

+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. They're mainly scholarly references referring to books and also including the ISBN on, if not all, then the majority.

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”? Very few

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? All groups that are recognized have specific names and titles.

+d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? All the information found in this passage speaks throughly about the heading its under or serves as an assisting objective. All the information I need is in this article.

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? The teachings aspect of the article is noticeably longer the other sections in the article but I believe its practical because theres a lot of detail involved in such a topic.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? Theres more than enough references for this article that takes up its own page just to list. As far as footnotes, they seem to be evenly distributed among the article after various sentences/phrases.

+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? All the edits made are mostly grammar and spelling. Another editor cut down the amount of references due to clutter but that would mean certain references and footnotes are excluded from credibility.

__________________________

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) October 14, 2016

-Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)

+Relevance (to your research topic) my topic has to do with the history, belief, and spiritual value to religion but because thats so broad, I decided to identify one religion for this topic and for that I've picked Buddhism.

+Depth Theres multiple headings and sub headings giving sufficient amounts of information to answer ones questions about Buddhism.

-Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) Its a scholarly source that identifies more than what I need to have a great understanding of my topic and to know its all valid as well as genuine.

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To inform the reader about all the aspects to buddhism. In my case, informing me clearly about the hits, beliefs, and spiritual perspective all through a scholarly based novel.