User:Dian Rodriguez/sandbox

97 TB

EC Dog

Part 1:

+ + 1. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article?

In my article Dogs in religion does not have a warning banner. In a different article Animal Right does have a warning banner. "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)". It has information of what right's animal has. And other websites to get more information.

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

The lead section of the article is easy to understand. It does summarize the key points of the article

+ 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. It does include headings, subheadings, images and diagrams, and appendices and footnotes.

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

Yes the various aspects of the topic is balanced well.

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

Yes the article does provide neutral point of view. It is read as an encyclopedia article.

+ 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 citing are reliable sources. Also, it is a trustworthy information.

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 the lead section is well-written, clear, and has correct English

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

No there isn't unsourced opinions.

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

It refers to named groups of people. And specific names to get the right facts.

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

The article did omit aspects in some topics of the article.

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

Some topics are shorter than other topics which are longer than others.

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

No the article does not lack in sufficient references or footnotes.

+ 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?

There is respect towards the people having a conversation.

Part 2:

Evaluate the Wikipedia article you selected using the CARDIO method. Write your answers following each word below:

+ Currency

The last update of the article was on October 4, 2016 on the part of Hinduism

+ Authority 

Unknown author because the article is from Wikipedia.

+ Relevance (to your research topic)

My research topic was very relevant.

+ Depth

- Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)

It was good.

+ Object 

The purpose of the article was to give information about dogs and how they relate with religion.