User:Jasmynfletcher/sandbox

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

My real name is: Jasmyn Fletcher

My Research Topic is: Resistance in African American History

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Resistance, Slavery, Equal Rights, Civil Rights Movement

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: Civil Rights Movement

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?

• No, doing the banner question on Cookie

If there is a warning banner, copy and paste the warning banner here.

• 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. (March 2015)

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?

• Everyone on the planet has a different opinion on cookies. The information noted in the warning banner is important because this is a biased and personalized topic and no single statement is going to apply to everyone who reads it.

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.

• Cookie

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, however, I feel that the summary could have been slightly longer in order to touch on the multiple subtopics of the text.

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 of the article is extremely clear. Because the article is extremely long, the subheadings, images and diagrams can help me in the future when I am looking for a more specific are of the topic

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

• The various aspects of the topic are balanced very well. They flow chronologically and do not bounce around, which makes the text easy to navigate as well as read.

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

• The article provides a neutral point of view. It reads like an encyclopedia article. The article consistently states historical facts, events and the details behind them without being biases or stating any opinion based ideas.

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.

• There are many references to other Wikipedia pages that may assist in this topic. The historiography/memory and primary sources are all hard copies of reliable book sources. The external links are all websites with valuable information, the credibility of them is questionable. However, they are not journals or any biased opinions, therefore I would deem them as reliable sources. I looked at the majority of the sources and I can see that the article has directly derived from the credible 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, the article has impeccable grammar of the English language.

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

• No. The article is unbiased and neutral. The main goal is to state the history along with the details and effects of it.

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 refers to the groups of people specifically and directly to avoid confusion.

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

• The article does not seem to omit topics because, from my knowledge, it addresses all of the major points that are necessary. The Civil Rights Movement was a lengthy and detailed process, I am sure not every single detail is acknowledged in the article, but the gist of the topic is made known.

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

• Yes. The sections that are longer are the ones that have more value to the article overall rather than the ones that are shorter. It is not that they have little value, but that the larger sections are key points.

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

• No. The article ends a long, thorough list or primary sources, external links, historiography/memory as well as a condensed timeline of events, activists and their groups.

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?

• There was no hostile evidence. The editors for this topic ensure that they are polite and following the wikipedia guidelines.