User:Wq8655/sandbox

99% 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]
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016

3.8 My real name is: Vanessa Chavez-Corona

3.8 My Research Topic is: How music impacts the brain?

3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: music,brain

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:

3.8 + 2 I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) Music psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_psychology

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? Yes or No Not sure If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

This section requires expansion. (April 2014)

3.8 Write a 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? I think this symbol is used to say that there needs to be more research done in that area.

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? I believe that this article isn’t the hardest to read but it’s not the easiest mostly because of some words that i do not know. I feel like it does summarize the key points of the article.

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?” I'm not so sure if this is the best article because it doesn't really have that many pictures and diagrams I also cant find where the footnotes are at in the article.

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? I feel like this article gives some information about my topic but I couldn’t find one that really explained how music impacts the human brain.

3.8 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? I don’t feel like it’s written as a persuasive essay so it must be written as a encyclopedia article.

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. I feel that the references are very helpful and they seem reliable to me.

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 this article is well written and clear but it does not have enough information as what i expected.

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? I feel that all the things said on the article are pretty natural.

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 the article does not refer to a specific group of people

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Yes I feel like it could have more of the scientific side of the question.

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes I feel like there is more information about certain areas then the overall topic.

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? Yes I feel like this article needs more information on everything.

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? It doesn’t look like anyone is being disrespectful to one another.

__________________________

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) March 7, 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 feel that you should have some kind of credential in music or science because of how the brain takes in the sounds of music.

5 Relevance (to your research topic) It makes sense to use this article for help but it's not the only one i should use because it does not give me a specific answer and why music impacts our brain.

5 Depth It goes into detail and gives great evidence to prove it it’s not enough for me.

2 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) I think all the information in this article was formatted nicely and in a great order. '''[This is asking about the target audience. So, this Wikipedia article is a website written for the general public.]'''

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To inform people about the psychology in music and the brain.