1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)
2. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? No
3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes it is very simple.
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?” There is one footnote and one photo and there are 3 titles
5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? It explained what the Zendo's purpose it and how it is used and who is it used by, which is the Japanese people.
6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Yes it is neutral.
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. The footnote appears to be leading me to a book that is open to anyone who is interested in the art of Zen.
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?
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?
| This user is a student editor in
Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_East_Bay/Introduction_to_Information_Literacy_(Fall_Quarter_2017). 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. |
1. I chose to read and evaluate the article titled: (for extra credit, link the name of the article to the article in Wikipedia.)
2. Is there a warning banner at the top of the article? No
3. Is the lead section of the article easy to understand? Does it summarize the key points of the article? Yes it is very simple.
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?” There is one footnote and one photo and there are 3 titles
5. Are “the various aspects of the topic balanced well”? That is does it seem to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic? It explained what the Zendo's purpose it and how it is used and who is it used by, which is the Japanese people.
6. Does the article provide a “neutral point of view”? Does it read like an encyclopedia article instead of a persuasive essay? Yes it is neutral.
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. The footnote appears to be leading me to a book that is open to anyone who is interested in the art of Zen.
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?
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?
| This user is a student editor in
Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_East_Bay/Introduction_to_Information_Literacy_(Fall_Quarter_2017). 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. |