92 % + = full credit | = half credit - = zero credit
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2016
My real name is: Leidy Sarai Lopez Chicas
My Research Topic is: Creativity
Key words related to my Research Topic are: Creativity in human beings?
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.)
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
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.
| This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles,condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (March 2013) |
+ This issue is important because to understand the given information they need to make this article easier to understand and shorter so you don't lose the audience interest.
+ 2. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article?
Yes is is very easy to understand and it also give you the definition of the word.
+ 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?”
Yes the structure is very clear and yes to the headings, subheadings, images,etc. It would have been better if they gave more images but the two that they gave were great examples.
+ 4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?
They are well balanced topics it start with the history if creativity leading to the more science of creativity and how it functions in the brain.
+ 5. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay?
It is not persuasive at all. It is more informative than someones opinion.
+ 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.
Ex: Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.
Most of the reliable sources are journals. I did not see any blogs.
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?
The paragraphs that I read are all clear and correct English I did not see any grammar mistakes.
+ b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?
No there is not.
+ c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?
yes, the refer to many as in us human beings.
+ d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?
Not any that I could think of.
+ e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?
Honestly I think they were just right some topic have to be discussed more than others.
+ f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?
No
+ 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?
In the view history I see that they did minor edits but no hostile dialogue or lack of respect among editors.
__________________________
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)
January 28, 2016
+ Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)
Kim, K. H.
- Stanford –
- Mary Land University, Associate Professor of Creativity & Innovation
+ Relevance (to your research topic)
Very relevant because it give me a definition and how creativity works in the human brain.
- Depth
Yes it is a scholarly source.
- Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)
It is very easy to read
+ Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?)
The person of creating this article is for anyone that wants to know how creativity work in people and where it came from.
 | This is a user sandbox of Mfcwashere. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |