User:Yanmagali/sandbox

48 % TB What's here is mostly just fine, but you did not include the CARDIO evaluation of the article.
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: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.) The article is called Meditation it speaks about the origins of meditation and the cultures it is used in 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No

There is no banner at the top of the article

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here. There was no warning banner present throughout the website

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? There was no banner throughout the website although there were a lot of pictures

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? Yes, the article is really easy to understand, I think the article was written for a general audience and not a scholarly audience. It does summarize the key points of the article and also offers a content section to 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 foonotes at the end?” There are several headings in the article some of these include, Etymology, History and modern definitions.

4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? Yes everything is balanced well in the article, I'd say the article is very organized in terms of the placement of the different heading and subheadings. It is very easy to understand when another topic is beginning and where one is ending. It provides a alot of information on the topic itself and it also branches out a bit into some similar topics that are closely related to the main topic of the article. 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 really think that there is any clear point of view to the article. Being that this is an informational article it really doesn't show much of the author's stance on the 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 references are all reliable there, everything is listed and they all are credible sources and links that will send you to different articles where you could read more about different topics related to meditation. 7. Look for these signs of bad quality and comment on their presence or absence from the article you are evaluating: There is no sign of bad quality in the article everything seems well written and well edited. a. is the lead section well-written, in clear, correct English? Yes, everything is written in clear and correct english b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? The article is an informational article there is no bias present.

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 only refers to the authors and sources in the foot notes d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? No, from what I read everything seems to be present there is nothing missing. There is information on the history on the origins and the use of meditation in the modern world e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? Yes there are certain sections that are longer than others, for example the history section is long but I believe its because there is a lot of information on the history. f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No the article does not lack any references every possible reference is listed in the foot notes 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? Nope there wasn't any hostile dialogue it was more of just editors acknowledging that they had made spacing adjustments and had taken pictures down