User:Asanc445/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
 * Rumex palustris
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content only consists of three sentences. In essence, these sentences are relevant to the topic; however, the article is in dire need of development. This article is just very lacking in general, there is nothing to be learned from it.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * The article is very brief, and there is not much room for biased opinions; therefore, the article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Each claim mentioned in the article has its own citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations are reliable because they come from credible sources; however, the majority of them are databases. There are not really any sources such as secondary journals that would provide a description of the plant which would help further elaborate the article. And also, they are just citing very small ideas from the given sources.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The article is a part of a WikiProject about plants, but nonetheless, there is no activity whatsoever on the Talk page. This is a very clear sign that the article is extremely underdeveloped and has not been forgotten for quite awhile. Also, from this page I learned that this was Stub page, meaning that this article really needs to be edited for more content.


 * Sources
 * The sources are mostly databases, and the article needs more sources that introduces more information about the plant other than its name, classification, and other generic information. For example, about half of the sources were databases.
 * The sources are mostly databases, and the article needs more sources that introduces more information about the plant other than its name, classification, and other generic information. For example, about half of the sources were databases.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Egyptian fruit bat


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the topic is completely relevant to the topic, and the article does a good job and introducing different categories of information about this species of bat. However, some sections could be further expanded, which is something I am interested in doing, for I have done research on this species of bat before. The majority of the information present on the page goes to the "Name" category, which is fine, but it is somewhat unbalanced that other critical categories that relate to the bat's behaviour are obviously shorter than the name one.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * The article does have statements that represent to different researchers' viewpoints; however, it does a good job in presenting both sides of the situation. The article did well in maintaining neutrality throughout the page.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * The majority of the claims have citations to them; however, there are some points that I would consider claims that are lacking a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations are reliable.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The Talk page does not have much discussion going on. There are only two posts and they were describing that either pages or links were being moved or modified. However, in this page, I saw that this is a WikiProject, and that the article itself is C-Class, meaning that it is lacking information.


 * Sources
 * The sources are alright; however, many of them are more than five years older. But a good chunk of them seem to reliable. It might need need more secondary academic journals for its sources.
 * The sources are alright; however, many of them are more than five years older. But a good chunk of them seem to reliable. It might need need more secondary academic journals for its sources.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Clinical Physiology


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant to the topic, but it is also underdeveloped and it needs more information to bring a more elaborate information about this field. For now the article might still leave the reader asking themselves certain questions about the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * The article does a good job remaining neutral throughout the article, for nothing was biased.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Some claims have citations while others do not. What really appeared to be somewhat off was the "History" section, which had an entire paragraph of information without a single citation included in it.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations, in all, were decent, but most of the sources, where the citations originate from, lead to unreliable sources.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * There are very little Wikipedians ccontributing to the conversation in the Talk page. Only a few conversations were made in the "Edits" section; aside from that, the actual conversation consists of three, unanswered questions.


 * Sources
 * Most of the sources listed in the references were unreliable, for they would not work to begin with when clicked on.There was only one that worked, and that is not a good sign for an article's credibility.
 * Most of the sources listed in the references were unreliable, for they would not work to begin with when clicked on.There was only one that worked, and that is not a good sign for an article's credibility.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Desmodus


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article only consists of a Lead section; therefore, it is lacking crucial information about this bat genus. The little information that is presented on the article, however, is relevant to the topic, for it describes the general concept of the genus' characteristics, history of its classification, and its classification. Similar to the Egyptian fruit bat article, there is plenty of information missing about the bat's general behaviour and characteristics.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * There is so little written on this article, that there is no room for biased claims. Ultimately, this article was written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Every claim mentioned in this short article has a citation assigned to it.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations appear to be reliable, since they come from academic sources. However, only the first three were used for the description information, while the rest were used to cite the classifications.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The talk page is absolutely empty. The only thing present in it is the WikiProject reference, and from there I saw that this article is definitely a stub article. It is in dire need of contribution.


 * Sources
 * A good portion of the references are databases that were used for the classification of the animal, and the others that actually consist of general information seem to be alright; however, there should be more sources that are up-to-date, because many of these sources are from more than five years ago.

Option 5

 * Article title
 * 2002 Finland Rally or Electric Music Concerts


 * Article Evaluation
 *  Both of these articles are not created.