User:AngstyArmadillo/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

 * Article title:
 * Photic zone
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead is very short, only 3 sentences long, and does not introduce all of the contents of the page. In the first section, the first several sentences, which include the statistic that 95% "of photosynthesis in the ocean occurs in the photic zone", are uncited. The first several sections are too short and need more elaboration and more citations. Two sections, Photic zone depth and Light attenuation have only one citation each. There is at least one citation (citation 3) that is from an press article, which is not a reliable source. Similarly, the second citation is just a dictionary definition. The link for citation 4 is no longer good. All the rest appear to be cited appropriately. There need to be more citation and more citations from other points of view.
 * All content appears to be relevant, although there is way more material on light attenuation than on any other topic from the article, which is arguably the least relevant section. Maybe this section can be parred down a bit to make it a be more concise. I did not notice any issues with neutrality for this one and this article does not tackle an equity gap. On the talk page there is some discussion about whether this page should be called the Photic zone or the Euphotic zone and some uncertainty about the difference between the two, along with epipelagic. This is something we would likely have to look into if we were to select this article. Images were all relevant and presented well, and most seemed to be cited appropriately too, as either "own work" or "public domain."
 * The lead is very short, only 3 sentences long, and does not introduce all of the contents of the page. In the first section, the first several sentences, which include the statistic that 95% "of photosynthesis in the ocean occurs in the photic zone", are uncited. The first several sections are too short and need more elaboration and more citations. Two sections, Photic zone depth and Light attenuation have only one citation each. There is at least one citation (citation 3) that is from an press article, which is not a reliable source. Similarly, the second citation is just a dictionary definition. The link for citation 4 is no longer good. All the rest appear to be cited appropriately. There need to be more citation and more citations from other points of view.
 * All content appears to be relevant, although there is way more material on light attenuation than on any other topic from the article, which is arguably the least relevant section. Maybe this section can be parred down a bit to make it a be more concise. I did not notice any issues with neutrality for this one and this article does not tackle an equity gap. On the talk page there is some discussion about whether this page should be called the Photic zone or the Euphotic zone and some uncertainty about the difference between the two, along with epipelagic. This is something we would likely have to look into if we were to select this article. Images were all relevant and presented well, and most seemed to be cited appropriately too, as either "own work" or "public domain."


 * Sources:
 * Behrendt, 2019, Sephus (Cathryn), 2022 ; Bielawski, 2004
 * Behrendt, 2019, Sephus (Cathryn), 2022 ; Bielawski, 2004

Option 2

 * Article title:
 * Redfield Ratio
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article seems in decent shape but there is room for elaboration and better citations. All content was relevant to the topic and also pretty well written, although the focus is a little too heavy on Redfield himself rather than the scientific topic (this was also brough up on the talk page). Thus there is a lot that can be moved around and condensed under "discovery", and a lot of space for new sections - these will require some searching to identify. There are also too many claims without citations. The citations that are all there seem appropriate and reliable, although there were two broken links (citations 3 and 7). I saw no issues of neutrality or equity gaps. The citations seem relatively diverse, but there is room for improvement there too. There is only 2 images, so there is room for improvement there as well. The lead does not cover everything that is in the rest the article, namely the extended Redfield ratio. There is definitely room for development in the lead. There are also some mentions on the talk page about the ratios reported on the page being out of date, so this will also require some fact checking.
 * Sources
 * Chavez, 1991, Hillebrand, 2013 , Takahashi 1985 , Tett, 2009 , Cleveland 2007 - Redfield in soils?
 * Sources
 * Chavez, 1991, Hillebrand, 2013 , Takahashi 1985 , Tett, 2009 , Cleveland 2007 - Redfield in soils?

Option 3

 * Article title:
 * North Atlantic Gyre
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is pretty short and could use some new sections. Maybe one on the life found in this area? It's effects on the carbon/etc cycles? Importance should definitely be a section - importance in terms of biology and physical oceanography. There are two images, one is low quality, both are marked as public domain, so there is room for more figures, and it would be good to replace the low quality one if possible. The lead is clear about describing what the gyre is, but does not introduce any of the other topics covered in the article aside from the garbage patch (seasonal variability and lead contamination). There are a lot of claims without citations; overall the article needs more reliable sources. The article currently has 13 sources total, 8 of which are in the final section on the garbage patch. Citations number 7 and 12 have broken links, and three citations, 8, 9, and 10 are news articles which are not reliable sources. The citations do feature a few women, which is great, but could use more work.
 * I believe the Garbage Patch section should be expanded and even set into two sections - formation, concerns, and activism/responses would all make good subsections. Lead Contamination is only 4 sentences long and has only one citation. Depending on what's out there, this could be converted into a "Pollutants" section, that could cover other pollutants found in the gyre. The talk page didn't have much - there was a comment about adding specific information on size, shape, depths, flow and volume of the gyre, which I think is a good suggestion, although it may be hard to find. There is also a mention of needed clarity between the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (what we want) versus the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre, which is different. Potentially this may be a name change that needs to happen.
 * I believe the Garbage Patch section should be expanded and even set into two sections - formation, concerns, and activism/responses would all make good subsections. Lead Contamination is only 4 sentences long and has only one citation. Depending on what's out there, this could be converted into a "Pollutants" section, that could cover other pollutants found in the gyre. The talk page didn't have much - there was a comment about adding specific information on size, shape, depths, flow and volume of the gyre, which I think is a good suggestion, although it may be hard to find. There is also a mention of needed clarity between the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (what we want) versus the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre, which is different. Potentially this may be a name change that needs to happen.


 * Sources
 * Eriksen 2013, Branch 2018 , Jung-Hyun (Kim) 2007 , Reisser 2015 , turtles- Chambault 2019