User:Sitlalitc/sandbox

80 % TB I don't know the title of the article you evaluated.
Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? 'Yes 2. Is the lead section the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes article is easy to understand and it does summarize the key main points. 3. Is the structure of the article clear? “Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end?” '''There it is very clear to read, at the top of each section there is a heading of what you are about to read. There is no images at all nor and diagrams.''' 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? '''On topic it gives a good overview. The reading is very informational and constructed very well, The reading itself was pretty balanced but it was defecult to read for most parts.''' 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? '''The article surprisingly has a neutral point. I would think it would not due to creativity within religion is a more of what you believe in topic. ''' 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 reference and sources are credible.They come .org pages and as well books that came/ made for this topic. Most og the different sources come from publishers from different University school.''' 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. oc. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? '''No it does not use any of those. They actually name and or refer to someone or something.''' d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? I do not believe so. e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes. f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No. 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? I do not see at all on this topic/article. __________________________

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) 'October 7th 2016 Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) '''Most of the anthers have a degree that deals with either religion, creativity, or spirituality. Most of them published a book dealing with my topic or something familiar.''' Relevance (to your research topic) It is relevant because my topic has to deal with creativity and spirituality. Depth

Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) The format to my article was a research based format. Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose for this article was to inform readers more about creativity became.It gives the history and background about creativity. {{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}