User:Sicklijah/sandbox
1. Login to your own Wikipedia account, and click on Sandbox in the upper right part of the screen.
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.
4. Click SAVE!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Mid-Term Quiz for LIBY 1210-09 Winter 2017
My Research Topic is: How Human Emotions Work
Key words related to my Research Topic are: Emotions, Human, Feelings.
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.)
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.
| This article needs attention from an expert in Psychology. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Psychology (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008) |
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?
The warning banner is important in this article because the usage of specific terminology in this article can be considered jargon to an outside source. This source has many technical terms in which the average read would not understand. This matter because you want your article to be reader friendly sense it is displayed on a free online referencing website.
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.
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 open ended but has definite answer entwined within it. The definition of emotions was that there was no definition. The main point in the article was to say that emotions are human mental cognitions that can be a stimulate on how you felt or feel and what is going on in your day.
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 article I chose is very clear there are a bunch of subheadings and headings. There are 92 footnotes in total. There are no appendices.
4. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic?
The topic is balanced from my understanding but I do not know what completely is human emotion in an academic standard.
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 view point by providing multiple example of different views and refernces from other articles and book so it can be read like an Encylcopedia.
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.
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?
b. are there “unsourced opinions” and/or “value statements which are not neutral”?
c. does the article refer “to ‘some,’ ‘many,’ or other unnamed groups of people,” instead of specific organizations or authors or facts?
d. does the article seem to omit aspects of the topic?
e. are some sections overly long compared to other sections of similar importance to the topic?
f. does the article lack 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?
__________________________
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)
Authority (What evidence do you find that the author(s) of this article have the appropriate credentials to write on this topic?)
Since it is Wikipedia everyone can potenially be the author. The sources used point towards credibility. Sources from various prestigious University
Relevance (to your research topic)
7 out of 10
Depth
8 out of 10
Information Format (I hope this one will be easy for you.)
Not for the general audience but some part can be. Usage of techincal terms a lot.
Object (what is the purpose for creating this article
The purpose of this article was to provide information about human emotion. In the lead section of the article they say, "human emotion has no defintion." The purpose is to provide information and allow the reader to come up with his or her own idea of what human emotion is.