User:Steph.richards/sandbox

'''96% Good work! (+=correct, ++=extra credit -=incorrect ~=half credit)'''

My Research Topic is: Homosexuality and Religion - What roles does Christianity play in the homosexual lifestyle?

Key words related to my Research Topic are: LGBTQ, Homosexual, Homosexuality, Religion, Christianity, Christ, Gay, and Lesbian

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 "Christianity and Homosexuality" and also "List of Christian Denominational Positions on Homosexuality"

+1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No? No for the first one, yes for the second one further down

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

" This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2017) " 

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? '''The warning says the article section needs to be updated because further information is available. This is important because the church or even information in general might've changed. When information changes, you wouldn't want to be stuck in the older ways, you want the most current and truest version- not only for yourself but for others to know.'''

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. (I chose two articles for this reason, as explained above)

+2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes, the opening paragraph was very accurate in summarizing what the article was about

+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, all of the above. This article has footnotes, diagrams, different headings and titles. Some are major titles, and others are sub categories and smaller titles.'''

+4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? This article is mostly balanced, however there is slightly more about what branches of Christian denominations are supportive of the homosexual lifestyle instead of the same amount of supportive and not supportive.

+5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Very neutral, mostly all factual with no imposing influence or bias.

+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, the information cited and noted at the bottom are all credible and trustworthy. There isn't any blogs, instead all scholarly articles or books.'''

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, everything is sourced and neutral

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? No

+d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Not at all

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Sort of, there are only two sections that make a big contrast: a very short paragraph in the beginning about the Orthodox church, and another extremely long paragraph about supportive views of homosexuality.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No, in fact there's over 100 footnotes and 19 references.

+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? '''Not in the slightest, mostly all edits of punctuation or errors. (At least how I'm reading it, I'm still new so I could be misreading the dialog).'''

__________________________

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)

June 1st, 2017.

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

I think this article was made by Wikipedia itself because there is no author, it only says "from Wikipedia."

+Relevance (to your research topic)

This is such a relevant article, as it not only gives a perspective about Christianity as a majority, it breaks down the general opinions of every branch of Christianity, which is really really nice for me to talk about.

+Depth

It's a very in depth article, delving into each denomination and even perspectives of those same churches outside the United States.

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

This article is in paragraph form.

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

'''To give all of the perspectives of the different branches of Christianity among the different places of those churches. I think there is also an indication to highlight acceptance and non-acceptance about the churches for LGBTQ folk so they can make educated decisions about the religious paths they take.'''