User:Kim5 ayala/sandbox

88 % + =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.)

I read the article named "Icon" this article informed us about religious art work and the meaning behind it and different churches that have many icons and represent someone sacred through art.

+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. No warning banner 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.

+3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? This article main points were that religious art was most used on the Eastern orthodox church,oriental orthodox, and Eastern catholic church. This article also included that the old religious paintings are very different to the ones we have today. They have a record of all the dates of when the paintings were created and it's now a tradition to continue painting christian images.This article it's understandable because they explained religion and the history behind images and how its being interpreted.

+4. 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?” They added titles every time they talk about a certain topic and the added images where it was appropriate which was about in every topic.

+5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Yes, the reason is because they talked about many religions point of view and it helps me understand with detail and images. They divided every section and in every section they included information that talked about the religious images and it gave me an overview of the different centuries of icons.

+6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? This is an encyclopedia article because it gives me several topics about icons.

+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. The book is called "Painting The Soul" by Robin Cormack and it's trustworthy because the author has wrote more then one book.

8. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: In my opinion this article was well written because they gave me verses from the bible to be support.

+a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? It's professional and clear to understand.

+b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? It's not forcing an opinion in any source.

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? Yes, it does give the names of each religion.

+d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Yes, its talking about icons and it only focus on religion and art.

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? This article is really long it also includes the testaments to read further about the Icons based on the bible.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? They only added one reference and the rest were recommendations with links to other 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? The editors are being respectful because they are fixing the article and saying why they added or took a pice of information. __________________________

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 update on this article was 7 October 2017.

-Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) He's written several books on many different faiths in Europe and his name is Robin Cormack '''I see Robin Cormack in the references, but I'm not seeing evidence that he wrote the article. I may be missing something! Please let me know if you have information that he was one of the authors. I'm glad to change your grade if I am mistaken.'''

+Relevance (to your research topic) It covers a lot about my topic orthodox christianity and it includes paintings that have figures of angels and saints.

+Depth It goes into similar figures in religions of different cultures like Russia. It's very detailed and at the same time concise.

+Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) It's a popular source of information because the language is easy to understand which is something that most scholarly information sources don't have.

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) This article was created to briefly give an idea of the different icons and different religions of different cultures.