User:Mvriv/sandbox

Important Notice: Submit your answers by copying and pasting these questions, then answering them in your Wikipedia Sandbox, which is where I am able to access your answers.

Mid Term Quiz

'''Evaluate a Wikipedia article relevant to your own Research Topic: To earn credit for this Mid Term, you must complete Part 1 and Part 2. This exam should take you less than 2 hours to complete. Be sure to give yourself enough time. It must be completed by noon on Wed. 19 Oct 2016.'''

1. Login to your own Wikipedia account, and click on Sandbox in the upper right part of the screen.

2. Then, in your Sandbox, click “Edit.” Click below the box that describes the Sandbox, then copy and paste the rest of this Mid-Term Quiz document into your sandbox.

3. Write your answers to these questions in your own Wikipedia Sandbox.

4. Click SAVE!

---

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

My Research Topic is:

Key words related to my Research Topic are:

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: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

f. does the article lack sufficient references or 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?

__________________________

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)

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

Relevance (to your research topic)

Depth

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

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