User:97DolphynEldridge15/sandbox

1. Login to your own Wikipedia account, and click on Sandbox in the upper right part of the Wikipedia screen. Copy the URL for your sandbox and place a link to your Sandbox in your own User Page.

2. Then, in your Sandbox, click “Edit.” Click below the box that describes the Sandbox, then copy and paste the rest of this Mid-Term Quiz document into your sandbox.

3. Write your answers to these questions in your own Wikipedia Sandbox.

My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Fall 2015

My real name is: Tiana Eldridgeno

My Research Topic is: Euthanasia

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal

Next 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.)

Eithanasia

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 a 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 warnings that are in that banner.

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

the lead section was quite understanding it just gave the defination of euthanasia which is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering

3. Is the structure of the article clear? “Are there several headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices andfoonotes at the end?”

yes

4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?

very much so

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

yes it mostly consit of facts

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 the references and footnotes are citing reliable sources

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?

yes it i very understandable

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

yes some of the valued statements are biased

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 name organization

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

no the article gave an in depth explanation and background info

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

yes i believe that some section are very long for no reason i think that they could shorten some section

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

no i think it has enough sources

g. Look at the Talk Page 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?