User:Jesse Pon/sandbox

Jesse, this shows some very good work! Explanation accepted.

94% + =correct | = mostly correct - = incorrect

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-15 Winter 2018 My Research Topic is: American Music through time Key words related to my Research Topic are: Music, History, America

Part 1:

++1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled:Music History of the united states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_history_of_the_United_States +2. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes "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. (December 2009)" The reason this matters is because it might not be as credible. Since some sources aren't verified it might seem like the information used isn't true

+3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? The lead section is sorta long but it does address the main points and gives an overview of what the article is about.

+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?” The article has a really good layout. It has the main topic in bold then goes into subtopics. It goes into detail on the subtopics and explains how it correlates and ties to the main topic

+5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? I think it does do a good job in addressing all the topics. I also like that it's easy to follow and it seems like an article many people can understand and use.

+6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? I don't think its really a persuasive essay or an encyclopedia article. I think it's more like an informative essay where it gives you information and not really an opinions.

+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. He uses a lot of other Wikipedia articles however those other Wikipedia articles use a lot of information from book and university articles as well as some press release so In my opinion this article is quit reliable.

8. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: The only bad thing that I can think of would be that some sources arent cited or they might need editing.

+a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? I like how clear it is and the article isn't too formal it also gives a bit of history on how music started. It's also not overcrowded with information which makes it easy to follow

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

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? If it were to use unnamed groups of people it would probably still have a link to another article to further explain it.

-d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? The 1940’s and 50’s does have slightly longer paragraphs than the rest of the times. Also the American Roots have way more information than any other topic.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? I don't think it lacks sufficient references or footnotes but I do however think it could use more sources besides Wikipedia articles.

+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 didn't notice any disrespect for anyone's work except for one editor who wrote nonsense on the article, but luckily they changed it back to normal and revised his edits __________________________

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) The last time it was edited was on January 25 which is pretty recent

+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) The last person who edited has a bachelor's degree in engineering and graduated from The University of Sheffield. She also fights and edits vandalism for Wikipedia

+Relevance (to your research topic) This is relevant to my topic because it is specifically based on the United States which is where i'm trying to focus my topic

+Depth: This article goes into detail on the history but only gives a brief overview of each time however she does link other articles focusing on that specific subject or topic

The way it presents its information is clear and easy to follow. You don't really get lost and it's not overwhelming
 * Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?): The purpose is to provide readers some background information on how music has changed in America. It also gives information on the origins of music and its history.