User:SergioVilla101/sandbox

This is a source that uses actual near death experiences of people who almost died

Source: http://iands.org/ndes/nde-stories/17-nde-accounts-from-beyond-the-light.html

== 92.4 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] == My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016

3.8 My real name is: Sergio Villamizar

3.8 My Research Topic is: Near Death Experiences

3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: Near Death Experience

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:

0 I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) [Which article in Wikipedia did you evaluate?]

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, there is no warning banner.

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

0 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.

3.8 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes it does, it specifically describes what a near death experience can be.

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 foonotes at the end?”

Yes, the article has a solid structure. I see a lot of footnotes and headings, with sub-headings. I also believe they have the right amount of images that are relevant to the text.

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?

Yes, I see that the article is comprehensive. I see that the article looks at personal experiences, research done on the NDE, and how NDE is shown in popular movies. They even list the findings of NDE researchers.

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

Yes, it does have a neutral point of view for the most part because it presents to us information and not opinion. However, there is a section in this article that talks about the arguments against NDE. I feel like this wouldn't be necessary in an article that is meant to inform the reader about NDE. 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. Yes, I found references to books and scientific studies.

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 the lead section is well written.

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? Yes, there are opinions shown of people who are not neutral.

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, they name specific people.

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? No, it seems to cover the topic very well.

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes, there are sections that are longer than other sections

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No, there are a lot of references and footnotes.

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, I don't see any hostile or disrespectful conversatations.

__________________________

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) The last update was 25 April, 2016

5 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) I found that one editor is a person that works at Wikipedia.

5 Relevance (to your research topic) This is very relevant to my topic. This article shows effects, studies, and personal experiences all of which I will need.

5 Depth: This goes very in depth about the topic. They even look at the religious aspects about near death experiences.

5 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) General Audience Encyclopedia article

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose of creating this article is to inform anyone who is curious about near death experiences.