User:Loominarty Rektangle/sandbox

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Fall 2015

My real name is: Eric Gatpandan

My Research Topic is: Conflicts between Religions

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Religion, Conflict

Next 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.)

Crusades

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article. (Get your copy from the Reference Desk.)

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

No but the articles for Kelley School of Business does

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

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removingpromotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (April 2015)

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?

The article is biased and wants to get people to go to the school. It needs to just give neutral information about the school instead of saying good things about it

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 warnings that are 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 gives basic information on what the crusades were and a basic background of what happened, and also gives some main ideas and time periods that will be explored later on in the article

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. There are Headings that cover general areas with subheadings about specific parts of that area. There are also pictures that illustrate some aspects of the crusades like maps and images of what some of the crusaders looked like.

4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?

This article has a comprehensive view on most of the topics. Some of other minor aspects don't have as much detail and are shorter than some of the major ones.

5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?

Yes. It just tells me information of what happened instead of telling me that what they did was right. It wasn't persuading me of anything, just neutrally informing me, which is what it's supposed to do.

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.

Yes. There are several references to books and articles from prestigious universities such as Oxford and the University of London.

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

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

Yes

b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?

No

c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?

No. The article uses pronouns after using proper nouns when mentioning groups.

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

No. It seems to cover all the bases of the crusades like the history and who was involved etc.

e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?

The History is the longest section, but its divided into 4 subsections while other normal sections don't have any subsections.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

No. There are several footnotes that occur frequently and sometimes simultaneously to confirm the credibility of the source and info.

g. Look at the Talk Page 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. They are quite respectable to each other when talking about the article. When someone seems to have made a mistake, others just talk about it without using hostile language and offer suggestions without forcing it on them.