User:Jlrnunez

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 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?

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 it is easy to understand, it ilabersts of the subject using examples and has a lot of refece so you can tell that they did their homework. 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 it is. it has topic headings that makes it clear to understand. 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? It has other things that dont really relate to mu topic but most of it douse. 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? yes, it jist gives you all the information you need with out a view point. 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. It has alot of refrences and it looks like there good sources. 7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: This is confusing i dont know what your asking a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? Yes its legibale and clear to read b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? no every thing in the artical is information based c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? no it soiusent d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? The topic was brad so it gave me diffrent subtopics e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? yes, the part of the statistics is much longer then the other parts. I think that they did that because they focused it more world wide. f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No it has alot of valid footnots. 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? Most of the history was fixing some grammer, puntuation etc __________________________

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 12 2016 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) wants to give the right information and has a lot of sources Relevance (to your research topic) yes it is relevent to the topic Depth

Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) yes it has the topic it is talking about the infotnation on it Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) It was to inform people about that topic.