100 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]
editMy Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Spring 2016
3.8 My real name is: Bellamar Ballesteros
3.8 My Research Topic is: Religion and Soceity
3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: Sociology of Religion 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.) Christianity in the 21st Century Christianity in the 21st century
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 No there is not a warning banner in the article I am evaluating, but there is a a warning banner in a different article close related to my article called God.
If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here. Globe icon. The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Western culture and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2016)
3.8 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 reason for the warning banner, was because my article did not replicate a whole worldview of the subject meaning that there can be different viewpoints that aren't being included. The warning banner matters because there might be people who hope to find there viewpoints on the subject, to only later read and find out that the article has nothing related to they were probably thinking.
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? The lead structure is very clear but reacquires much more detail. It was very straightforward and short. The key points were very bland and needed much more in depth detail.
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 footnotes at the end?” The structure is very clear and organized. Throughout the article many headings and subheadings were found with the appropriate images and diagrams. The article did have appendices but did not have any footnotes.
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? The article did not have a big overview on the topic. It was very short and straightforward.
3.8 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? The article does have a neutral point of view.
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. The references does cite reliable sources such as sources from scholarly articles.
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, it is very clear and written in correct English.
3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No, there were no unsourced opinions or value statements.
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 it does not. It refers to mainly facts,
3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Yes, the article omits aspects of the topic.
3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? No, the entire section is relatively short and straightforward.
3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? Yes, the article does in fact lack sufficient references and footnotes.
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? No, the editors respectful and comprehensible when it comes to editing the article.
__________________________
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 31, 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 found that the author has a PHD degree in philosophy and has many years in researching the topic.
5 Relevance (to your research topic) The article is very related to my research topic because my topic basically has to do with how religion is being viewed in today's society and the article is focusing how Christianity is being emphasized in today age and society.
5 Depth The article needed to be a bit more in depth but found interesting facts.
2 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) Text Formatting [This is an website article for the general public.]
5 mObject (what is the purpose for creating this article?) The purpose was to give a bit of overview of how Christianity is being viewed in todays society.