User:Tjaaayyy/sandbox

88.4 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016 My real name is: Tia Jones

My Research Topic is: universal religious practices Key words related to my Research Topic are: Different religious practices 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:

 - (What article did you select? I really can't tell, though I'll assume it was Religion.)  I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)

Use the criteria from the Evaluating Wikipedia brochure to evaluate the article. (Get your copy from the Reference Desk.)

+ 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? 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? No it was not easy to understand because in the opening it used a lot of intellectual words. Throughout reading it I had to go look up multiple words. But it does summarize the key points of the article, it previews the topics that are going to be brought up within 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 footnotes at the end?” Yes, the structure of the article is very clear there are many headings, in fact one for every subject change. However there is no pictures, but this is understandable because it would be challenging to find a picture that depicts a lot of the ideas in the article.

+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Yes there is an abundant amount of information starting from functionalism moving to law of religion and even order of religion.

+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Yes, the article is written in the context of an encyclopedia, there is no opinions or personal point of view.

+ 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 they were reliable sources because most of the references had an ISBN number meaning they are from books that have been published.

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 it is written in clear understandable English.

+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? Everything in the article is written with an unbiased view. + c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? No everything in the article that is referenced is either a religious group or

+ d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? I think what the article would need to include is the names of the different religions and how each religion relates to each topic instead of generalizing it all.

+ e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? I think the phenomenology section is a little over done just because they talked about how its done and the stages you have to go to but this part of the article didn't even brush who practices phenomenology.

+ f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No there is plenty of 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? No I did not see any negative comments or anything defacing the author.

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 on this article was on the 12th of January 2016.

+ Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) I know the authors who wrote this section out of the Wikipedia encyclopedia have the right credentials because you can look at their personal reference and see why they are qualified. Either they have written a bool or a scholarly journal.

+ Relevance (to your research topic) Religious studies is relevant to my topic because in order to know the differences in religions you first need to know all the history and practices.

+ Depth The article went well in detail, there is plenty of depth especially when referring to the history of religion.

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

+ Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose for creating this article was so that readers can see different interpretations of different religions from an unbiased view. Religious views and behaviors are explained from an outside point of view.