User:Steph e007

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

My real name is: Stephanie Esqueda

My Research Topic is: Spirituality and Culture

Key words related to my Research Topic are: Spirituality

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.

Engaged Spirituality

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? Yes or No

No

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

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Several links to disambiguation pages - possible links to the page itself. Please help improve this article if you can. (May 2013) - Mormon Art

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?

The information given here is important because it's saying that the article needs to be cleaned up and meet the required standards of Wikipedia. In this article theres many sentences with authorize information.

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?

Yes, it's easy to understand, very brief on what this article says. It summarizes the key points.

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?”

Yes, the article is clear to read and understand. There are subheadings but no images or diagrams to see.

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 aspects of this topic are balanced very well. My topic connects very well with this article.

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

The article reads like an encyclopedia, it states all of the point of views as well.

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 reliable sources, they point to scholarly 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

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

No

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

Some

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

No

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

No

f. does the article lack sufficient references or footnotes?

No

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?

I see that this article is not on an important scale. It's not finished yet. It needs a little more work.

This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_East_Bay/Introduction_to_Information_Literacy_(Fall_Quarter_2015).
Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article.

Hi, my name is Steph_e007 short for Stephanie, I live in California. I attend Cal State East Bay University, I play sports such as Cross Country, Basketball, and Swimming. I'm excited to learn how to use Wikipedia.