User:AllenCamp28/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Fish scale:
 * Article Evaluation:The articles content is definitely relevant to its title. The content breaks down each type of scale that a fish can possibly have and breaks down the characteristic of each along with which species of fish have them. I personally would remove parts like the shark skin influencing aerodynamic designs because this is not relevant to the fish scales topic. The article is written neutrally seeing as it has actually been corrected twice for having the word celebrated which has a positive connotation, but other than that it seems pretty matter-of-fact in tone. Each claim does have a citation which can be seen at the end of the passage for each section. Most of them are either colleges like Oxford or research from journals of science. This article does not tackle Wikipedia's equity gap seeing as it strictly focuses on the subject of fish scales and does to have mention of any outside social factors.
 * Sources:

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Mammalian eye
 * Article Evaluation:The contents of this article is relevant to the subject of the article. The article is all about the mammalian eye and the parts of the eye along with the purpose they serve. If I were to add anything to this article I would add a section of eye disabilities and conditions that are common amongst mammalian eyes or how each eye differs from species to species. Aside from that all the information that the article has is completely relevant. In terms of citation I do not see the use of a lot of different sources like I did in the previous article. There are almost not sources/citations at the end of the sections of this article. This article doesn't tackle wikipedia's equity gap seeing as it does not specifically mention any research or accolades of underrepresented populations. The talk page is sort of emptier than the previous article all there is is cleaning up links.
 * Sources:

Option 3

 * Article title:Dog anatomy
 * Article Evaluation:The content of this article is all relevant to the topic of this article seeing as it goes really in depth into each aspect of a dog from its muscles, to its skin, to its coat. I would delete the magnetic sensitivity portion of this article because it seems to be a theory at best and is not important to the anatomy of a dog. I feel like it can be a part of another section, does not require its own section in bolded letters for two sentences. Each claim does have a citation after the claim, the talk page of this wiki is very strict on the use of sources and citations even going as far as to delete a section that had a weak source and was poorly written. The tone of this article is neutral again they have deleted things and discussed why on the talk page. This article does not address wikipedia's equity gap, there is no mention of any underserved populations or discoveries by minorities.
 * Sources:

Option 4

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources:

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources: