User:MasterDiegs/sandbox

'''106.25% Good work! (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)'''

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2017

My Research Topic is: Popular music during World War II.

Key words related to my Research Topic are: World War II and Popular music.

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: Role of Music in World War II; Role of music in World War II

+1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes

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

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) 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?

+Some of the reasons why this article holds issues is because it does not reflect an encyclopedic tone. This is important because instead of sounding informative it can sound more bias which is not what an encyclopedia is known for containing. The second problem with this article is that it is in need of more citations. Citations help to make something credible, with this article not having many citations or the right ones can mean that the information being provided is not very credible.

+2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?

The lead section is in fact easy to understand and in fact is pretty generalized. It to a certain extent does summarize some key points.

+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?”

The structure of this article is pretty clear. There are headings, subheadings and even references, external links, and further readings. There are no images

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

The various topics all hold information but it seems that some topics go into more depth than others. For instance music in America and Great Britain hold more information than that of axis powers Germany and Japan. This also might be where the bias comes into play.

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

For the most part, this article provides a neutral point of view. It does read like an encyclopedia article but lacks information under many topics but holds a lot of information for other topics.

+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, further reading, and external links all are reliable sources that can link myself to more and credible information. Though some website did lead to a more generalized information for the public it could still be useful.

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 the lead section is in clear correct English.

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

While reading the article, I didn't find any non neutral statements, yet there are areas where there is a lack of information.

+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 actually names specific organizations and facts. There are no unnamed groups in this article.

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

Yes it does. The main topic is divided into subtopics that go into more detail.

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

YES! There are many sections that are overly long compared to other sections which only list song names and links.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

No the article does contain sufficient references and footnotes.

+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?

While looking at the view history I did not see any hostile dialogue. I did see a lot of mobile edits though.

__________________________

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 of the article was April 3, 2017.

+Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)

Though there is no evidence of there credentials, there is evidence they did a lot of research on the topic by the amount of sources and external links they provide.

+Relevance (to your research topic)

This is very relevant to my research topic. It contains information about world war II and popular music

+Depth

This is written by someone who gained a lot of knowledge about most of the topics and put down what he got from that information.

+Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

General Audience Website.

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?)

The purpose for making this article was to inform the reader of the popular music that was being played in all the different countries involved in World War II.