User:Abinzaid/sandbox

96% + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016

My real name is: Abdulrahman Zaid

My Research Topic is: Religion and Mental Health.

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Religion, Mental Health

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: Religion and Health

(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? Yes or 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. I can't seem to find an article with a warning banner. related to my topic.

+2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?

Yes, the lead section of the article has summarized key points in five sentences in which it has been stated that religious belief may have positive as well as negative impact on health.

+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, the structure of the article is clear. Main heading has been supported by six sub-headings (including reference part). There are no images and diagrams in the article, however notes have been given in a small font at the end of 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, a balance has been maintained in various aspects of the topic, which enable readers to get a comprehensive solution to their reading needs.

+5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?

Yes, a neutral approach has been adopted in the article, where an equal balance has been maintained in developing a link between religion and health. Neither the article talks completely in favor of positive relationship between two variables nor does it involves any controversial aspect. The article looks completely like the one published in encyclopedia.

+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.

All reliable sources such as books and journal articles have been cited in the article due to which information presented in the article seems to be as trustworthy.

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?

Lead section has been crafted in well manner. It is easy to understand as it makes use of correct words and phrases of English language.

+b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?

Everything presented in the article is completely neutral. Each paragraph/sentence has been supported with valid and authenticated reference source.

+c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?

No, there are no unnamed groups of people or organization. All sources have been quoted with the name of their specific authors.

+d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?

Article is completely relevant and contains useful information about the topic.

+e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?

Yes, few sections have been given more importance than others, though all sub-headings demands for equal attention of writer. The sub-topic “mental health” and “infections” needs more elaboration like “positive effects” and “negative effects”.

+f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

According to information presented in the article, footnotes and references are sufficient enough.

+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?

Yes, few editors are criticizing the work of others, which shows that they are disrespecting each other to greater extent.

__________________________

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 article was last updated on 2^nd September 2015.

|Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) I can't seem to located the author(s), but i'm willing to trust Wikipedia in this one.

+Relevance (to your research topic) The article talks about health and religion which are closely related to my topic of Religion Spirituality and Mental Health.

+Depth It has few information i need, and a lot of other sources for more information.

+Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) General Audience Website.

+Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) Purpose of creating this article is to make readers inform about relationship between religion and health