Wikipedia Worksheet

3 Things I learned:

-They can lock articles or entries

-Only 1/3 of the trafficking is English

-Is more popular than the New York Times Website

2 Things I agree with

-Providing everyone with a free encyclopedia

-Neutrality policy

1 Thing I disagree with

- Most people editing understand the need for neutrality

Was I surpised?

-No

Why?

-I was not surprised after reading this article because cancer is a very serious and often sensitive subject among people in today’s society. Anyone that would post faulty cancer information would be a straight out jerk, and most people that do not know about the cancer tend to stray away or avoid the subject.

<><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><>

This article or section has multiple issues.	no
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.	no
The neutrality of this article is disputed.	yes
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.	yes
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.	no
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.	no
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.	no
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.	no
This article or section needs to be updated.	no
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.	yes
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.	no
This article does not cite any references or sources.	no

<><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><>

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	yes
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	yes
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	yes
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	complete

Reliable references:

• National Basketball Association (2001). "Official Rules of the National Basketball Association". http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html. Retrieved July 16, 2004.
• International Basketball Federation (June 2004). Official Basketball Rules. http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/download.asp?file_id=327.
• Reimer, Anthony (June 2005). "FIBA vs North American Rules Comparison". FIBA Assist (14): 40–44. http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/download.asp?file_id=518.

Possibly unreliable references:

·         Bonsor, Kevin. "How Basketball Works: Who's Who". HowStuffWorks. http://health.howstuffworks.com/basketball2.htm. Retrieved January 11, 2006.

Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?

GA rating

There are only a few issue that are being discussed. One states a grammatical issue; one would like more information on a certain topic in the article, and the other points out a place in the article that is contradicting. These minor issues do not make me doubt the credibility of this article.

How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support
your answer.

Reliable.

·         The sources used to construct the article are reliable.

·         There are only a mere few minor issues being discussed under the discussion tab.

·         Has numerous citations and footnotes.