User:Kerenefernandez/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
# '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' I'd say this article is neutral, it's just giving basic facts about the symbolism of Buddhism and there are no heavy claims. |
# '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' I'd say this article is neutral, it's just giving basic facts about the symbolism of Buddhism and there are no heavy claims. |
||
# '''Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?''' No, it gives evenly portioned representation |
# '''Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?''' No, it gives evenly portioned representation |
||
# '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' |
# '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' There are only 2 links that don't work, the ones that do work, give correlated information. A problem here would be how there are only 7 sources for a topic that has a lot of information |
||
# '''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?''' |
# '''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?''' |
# '''What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?''' |
||
Revision as of 20:44, 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[1]
- 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- Is any information out of date?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? There are not many sources (which I will eventually add) in order to find our if its outdated. The information, however is updated and correct. It gives a pretty good general explanation of the symbolism on Buddhism, just needs sources which is the content gap that is missing in this article.
- What else could be improved? Just the sources, even Wikipedia has recognized that this article needs citations.
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I'd say this article is neutral, it's just giving basic facts about the symbolism of Buddhism and there are no heavy claims.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it gives evenly portioned representation
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? There are only 2 links that don't work, the ones that do work, give correlated information. A problem here would be how there are only 7 sources for a topic that has a lot of information
- 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?
End
- ^ "Buddhist Symbolism". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 25 September 2018.