User:Kerenefernandez/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
# Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? |
# Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? |
||
* After reading the entire article, I believe the article was on topic, but what distracted me was how this article keeps saying a lot of stuff (correct information) but no citations to back it up and in my head I was thinking someone without any knowledge of Buddhism wouldn't know if this article is credible. |
** After reading the entire article, I believe the article was on topic, but what distracted me was how this article keeps saying a lot of stuff (correct information) but no citations to back it up and in my head I was thinking someone without any knowledge of Buddhism wouldn't know if this article is credible. |
||
# Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? |
# Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? |
||
# What else could be improved? |
# What else could be improved? |
Revision as of 20:23, 4 October 2018
"Evaluating an Article" Assignment
I identified an article that has a content gap from one of the articles provided on wiki edu:
Buddhist symbolism
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- After reading the entire article, I believe the article was on topic, but what distracted me was how this article keeps saying a lot of stuff (correct information) but no citations to back it up and in my head I was thinking someone without any knowledge of Buddhism wouldn't know if this article is credible.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- What else could be improved?
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?