User:JEBUS EB/sandbox

'''78% [please add in your answers for R D I in Pt. 2 and let me know so I can revise your grade. + =correct | = mostly correct - = incorrect'''

+ ++1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) -Tupac Shakur / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur

+2. 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. -N/A

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? - I can't find one. 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. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? -Yes, it is easy to understand and does give main points about the article.

+4. 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, it does have a clear structure.

+5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? - Yes, it does balance well.

+6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? - It is a neutral point of view

+7. 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. - I see a lot of footnotes and some do look scholarly and trustworthy.

+8. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: - I don't see anything missing, it as everything about him.

+a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? - Yes, it is.

+b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? - Not that I see.

+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, it doesn't.

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? - I personally don't think so.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? - No

+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? - No, I didn't see anything.

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) 9:21 October 17, 2017

+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) - I can't find the authors.

-Relevance (to your research topic)

-Depth - I don't know what this question wants?

-Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To learn about Tupac Shakur.