User:Mariahamos123/sandbox

99 % TB
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; Maltese (dog) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_(dog) 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. 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. (June 2012) 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? This matter so you know not to cite this correctly because there are problems with the banner. You dont want to put down wrong information or wrong citations or quotations

2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?Yes the lead article does it gives great detail and and it explains their qualities and features as well as their history. Every main point is followed by a bunch of main points and details.

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 the article was very clear. The headings are bold and it shows several pictures of the dogs with great notes including fun facts which I found to be pretty amusing.

4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Its aspects are well it even provides a table of content if you were just looking for specific information only.

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

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. There are hundreds of resources, I read a few and they are professional and reliable so id trust it.

7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: The only bad thing I would say is that they can give more photos of the dogs.

a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? Everything it written correctly and used properly that is what most of the comments are stating and giving positive feedback.

b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?no they are all neutral

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

d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? No it gives plenty of information After reading it I feel like I can buy A dog and I would know everything about it and its care.

e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? All the sections are equal decent sizes except with the exceptio of one which was the "car" section but it gives you proper training and steps on how to care for your dog.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? There are plenty of references and footnotes for this article.

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 comments are pretty positive there are edits on the information and most of them are saying that the proper words were used.

__________________________

Part 2:

Currency; The last edit was on October 17, 2016 Authority: It was made by wikioedia

Relevance: the animals of different cultures

Depth: super lengthy and very descripitive

Information Format: The formatting was very good. I was able to see structure very clear. It looks like it was made for a General Audience with reliable sources, It has very good use of vocabulary words.

Object: If someone was interested in buying a dog this articles tells you all about them. Its very informative.