User:Annarafferty/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
 * Persephone in popular culture
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has a warning at the top, which claims that there are several things wrong with it: it contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined or unverified, it needs additional citations, it is in list format, and it potentially has original research. The descriptions of appearances of Persephone in popular culture decrease in quality as you continue through the article, possibly showing a bias in the crafting of the article or the original research aspect of it. Additionally, this article could use some more citations in the References section, since the list of appearances is very long, while the list of References only contains seven items. On the talk page, there is only one entry, which makes me question how many people contributed to the list of where Persephone has appeared in popular culture, since that could speak to a certain bias. Overall, it is a good starting article, but it could definitely use some work to make it a useful Wikipedia article that contributes to the public knowledge about receptions of Persephone.
 * Sources
 * https://eidolon.pub/rape-or-romance-1b3d584585b8
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277044223_The_Recurrent_Quest_Demeter_and_Persephone_in_Modern_Ireland
 * https://www.academia.edu/33076539/Persephone_and_Hades_Revisited_Modern_Retellings_of_the_Myth_in_Young_Adult_Literature

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Persephone
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is incredibly well-written and well-sourced, which speaks to the importance of Persephone as both a historical and a modern icon. However, the section of this article entitled "Interpretation of the Myth" is short in comparison to the other sections, and I believe it could be extended with further research. There were many Greek scholars who wrote about how they interpreted the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, which I believe would be useful to add into this article. In terms of references and sources, though, this article is incredibly extensive and provides the reader with a much more confident sense that the facts stated within the article are verifiable. Additionally, the talk page for this article is very extensive, proving that Wikipedians have been in contact with each other quite frequently while drafting this article. This is something for me to keep in mind, especially since I will potentially be contributing to it in the future. Overall, this article is a superb example of how Wikipedia should be structured and how research should be offered to the public.
 * Sources
 * https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f46/4b9ba26035047fc985e17deffca8a24b260a.pdf
 * https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b346/3d08c591e769cdc50df322785464d126c645.pdf
 * https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/demeter-and-persephone-0012950

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Anthesphoria
 * Article Evaluation
 * As Wikipedia states, this article is a Stub. It is very short and does not provide readers with any important details about the Anthesphoria, and also does not have any references. Something slightly worrying about this article is that it says, "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "article name needed". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al." Although the work is in the public domain, the article does not ever quote what text is incorporated from the publication, leading me to believe the entire article may simply be incorporated text-- meaning it was copied and pasted. This would be clearly against Wikipedia's rules, which is why I would like to edit this article and make it more trustworthy and verifiable to any Wikipedians studying Ancient Greek history who may need to know more about this festival. The talk page only has one inquiry that was posted in 2010 and never answered, leaving me to believe there is some neglect going on. Overall, the Anthesphoria article could use significantly more information and credibility.
 * Sources
 * https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/acg2248.2-07.005/390:8?page=root;size=100;view=text
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/630195?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=anthesphoria&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Danthesphoria%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5055%2Ftest&refreqid=search%3Ad80b390fd80d0efc03a1f1828e380f52&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=MneXvCBO4nIC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=anthesphoria&source=bl&ots=W24GTto377&sig=ACfU3U2yDfERaw9I1LpUNBwdmemexudD8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnyaml_vnnAhUFlXIEHQyxBB04HhDoATADegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=anthesphoria&f=false