User:Kimtvehyung/sandbox

== 100.2 Mid Term Quiz [Part 1, each question is worth 3.8 % for full credit, for Part II, each question is work 5 % for full credit][edit | edit source] ==

I love sloths.

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016

3.8 My real name is: Brandy Sayavong

3.8 My Research Topic is: The benefits of learning a second/foreign language

3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: benefits of learning a second language

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:

3.8 + 2 I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) Second-Language Acquisition

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article.

3.8 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? No

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

2 [this needs an explanation in your own words about the significance of the the warnings.] 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? The issues mentioned in these warning banners are: (1)"it has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled..." (2) "the examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

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.

3.8 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? No, it uses an abundance of advanced language I do not understand, as well as diverge in topics I have no prior knowledge of. No it does not summarize the key points of the article.

3.8 3. 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 is clear. It includes headings, subheadings, diagrams, appendices and footnotes.

3.8 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Some of the aspects of the topic are more heavy than others. It does provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

3.8 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? It reads more like an encyclopedia rather than a persuasive essay. It appears to have a more neutral point of view.

3.8 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. The references and footnotes are primarily books and journal articles. This leads me to believe these are reliable scholarly and trustworthy sources.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating:

3.8 a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? Yes, I did not see any grammatical errors or inappropriate wording.

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? There does not appear to be opinions or value statements.

3.8 c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? No this article refers to specific researchers.

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? There may be certain aspects missing; however, I do not think there is considering I do not have a more broad knowledge of the topic.

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes, some sections appear to have much more information than others.

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No, there is an abundance of both.

3.8 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, all revisions seem to have valid reasons.

__________________________

Part 2:

Evaluate the Wikipedia article you selected using the CARDIO method. Write your answers following each word below:

5 Currency (When was the last update of this article? hint: check the View History) May 2, 2016

5 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) n/a No evidence.

5 Relevance (to your research topic) I believe this topic is very relevant. It includes information regarding the learning/acquisition of a language.

5 Depth It has an abundance of information and goes deeply into the subject and its aspects.

5 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) general audience website (with scholarly information).

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose of creating this article was to share the knowledge of what second language acquisition pertains to.