User:Kaylindviescas

1 Kaylind, to earn credit for this you need to evaluate an article that is in Wikipedia, not on the general web. So, please redo this and I will grade the correct version.

. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)Miami hip-hop act ArtOfficial keeps it real

2. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? Yes or No. yes

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? needs additional information matters so that we know that the information is accurate and makes sense.

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. 3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? yes its easy to understand and summarizes the key points

4. 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 very clear there are some headings and subheadings.

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

6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? yes provides a neutral point of view. 7. 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 some of them are reliable sources

8. 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? very well written and very clear

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

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

d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic? no not really e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic? yes

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes? kind of

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 __________________________

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) the last update was in 2012

Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?) the evidence that I found is how they speak and cite things like the have the proper credentials

Relevance (to your research topic) relevance to my topic because I am researching about the history of hip hop

Depth

Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)Object Object (what is the purpose for creating this article?) the purpose of creating this article was to spread more information about hiphop