User:Cecilia811/sandbox

102 % 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: Cecilia Solano Cardenas

3.8 My Research Topic is: Veganism

3.8 Key words related to my Research Topic are: Vegan* ethical motivation

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.) Veganism

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

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? It is important to have a warning banner because it alerts the reader to be conscious of what the article needs in order to be reliable and so the article wont have a biased or ignorant view.

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. Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2012)     

3.8 Different Article with banner: Animal rights The reason why the warning is there is because the "examples and perspective" in that article "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Also they are asking to improve the article by talking about it in the talk page.

3.8 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes, very to the point and it does summarize the key points in which the reader can understand instead of going of having to read the entire article which is quite lengthy.

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?” The Structure of the article is clear because in the content it has titles like history, increasing interest, animals products, vegan diet etc. Also the article has subheadings like "coining ther term vegan (1944), demographics, avoidance etc. While they have all that they also have it linked so you go directly to the where it is on the page.

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? It does seem to have a comprehensive overview of the topic and it even gives a bit more information about veganism and how one can try it.

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 provide a neutral point of view because it doesn't say you should be eating this in eats of meat products or its bad for your health/ really advocating for veganism. It writes from a nonbiased view because it says Vegans instead of we.

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. Yes they do cite from reliable sources like (10.) United States Department of Agriculture, (12.) Reed Mangels and etc. all through out the references and notes.

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? It is well written and there are no errors. Also its more for the general audience rather than for scholars.

3.8 b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”? No all of the statements that the article puts out is neutral and has sources if there is any speculation and to prove that it isn't just an opinion.

3.8 c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts? The article does refer to 'some' or 'many' through out the article but it very few all together like for some the article doesn't refer to the researchers it refers t but most of them have context within them.

3.8 d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? Not really the article pretty much includes everything about the topic.

3.8 e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? No, the sections the article has seems to have the same length of information through out the whole thing it has a bit more on some subheading but I think it is justifiable because it needs to have more info like foods.

3.8 f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? No which I am pretty impressed it has plenty of references and footnotes in which they have about 230 all together.

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, they pretty much write what they edited in the article like "I added to this section or I edited the vegan diet."

__________________________

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) The last update of the article was May 2, 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 didn't find any evidence of the authors credentials.

5 Relevance (to your research topic) Extremely relevant to my research topic

5 Depth The article is very in depth with its content.

5 Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.) General audience possibly editorial

5 Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) To inform the general audience about veganism and if the audience has any questions they can be answered within it.