User:AllenCamp28/sandbox

The first article I chose was False gharial. I chose this article because I have an interest in reptiles and saw that this was a reptile article that was in the C class articles. The leading opening portion of the article is very basic, it states the animal and where it lives in the world and thats it. I believe that maybe it can benefit from some extra information in order to not be as basic and so that it offers some extra retention. The first two portions of the article are fine but then we bump into some troubles in the habitat section of the article. It states some basic information but could benefit from speaking about the weather conditions of where these animals stay and even prevalent vegetation they use for nesting or shelter. The next portion that talks about breeding and mating season also lacks information like the breading season months and mating behaviors. The underlying issue of this article is the lack of information, the sources citied are from late 2000's early 2010's meaning that there is a bunch more relevant information within these past years that hasn't been used. In terms of tone and writing it was sufficient, nothing clearly biased or overly emotional. I just don't know if the gharial conflict with humans portion should be there. The talk page is rarely used all there is is discussion of taxonomy and the removal of an image. The page would also benefit from more images maybe of the eggs in a nest or the animal in the water.

my second article was Amaranth. I chose this article cause I was surprised something like this would be a C class article and I very much study different types of plants and vegetation. To me this article seems very complete, the leading text goes into detail about what amaranth is, the dimensions of the plant and the variability of it. It's very clear and concise as well as engaging. I really can't fathom how this is a C level article when it is all very informative and seems to include every aspect about this plant. We go from the nutrition to oil and dyes with everything in-between. There are even charts that break down the nutritional value of it by vitamins and elements. The tone of it shows slight bias on how great of a plant it is and even tho I agree I don't know if it would be deemed problematic. It tackles everything from cultural significance to industrial use and nutritional value it really is a great article to read. Even well thought out with the images placed and where they were placed. The talk page seemed to only have links to resources and no discussion so I don't know how it is possible for the actual article to be so packed with information and edits. All sources are citied and some are even recent.

My third and last article was on Quetzalcoatl. I chose this as my article because I have indigenous roots from Mexico and I love mythology so it seemed appropriate. The first thing to stand out was the amount of activity on the talk page. It seemed to not stop and there was a lot of in fighting about resources and deleting sections. I would assume the talk page would be like this because when we think of ancient cultures and their religions there are a lot of ways to interpret what they left behind and our understanding of that is ever changing but again I did not expect it to be as complex as it seemed on the talk page. The actual content was comprehensive and I found myself satisfied with the content the only thing that could be possibly added to was in the media section because I'm sure there are more references to Quetzalcoatl in modern media. the tone seemed neutral and the images were great seeing as it showed different depictions of it in different mediums. Sources range from all time periods which is to be expected with something of this topic.