User:Bap027/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
 * Namdapha Flying Squirrel
 * Article Evaluation
 * In reviewing this wikipedia article on the Namdapha flying squirrel, I found it very tedious to read and hard to understand since the writing style was not concise and clear. It lacked professionalism and contained an excessive number of run-on sentences which caused nothing but confusion. The lead section of the article consisted of only two sentences, which essentially only stated where the flying squirrel was endemic to. Although the lead introduced the topic of the Namdapha flying squirrel, it failed to give a brief description of the other sections of the article. Essentially, the article gave little to no information on the Namdapha flying squirrel other than a brief description of its appearance, where it lived, and the fact that it was endangered. Therefore, content was definitely lacking, and there is much room for improvement and additional information. When referring to the endangered status of the Namdapha flying squirrel, I do feel that the author showed some bias and presented the information in a subjective manner instead of an objective manner, particularly when he or she was talking about poachers, and of sightings by tourists which have been the result of “confusion”. Lastly, I would not consider the article to be up to date, as the most recent reference cited was from July 24, 2019. Several other sources were dated as far back as 1985 and 1981. Citations were used appropriately; however, with eight sources being used in the creation of this article, very little information was actually presented and I found the article to be extremely underdeveloped.
 * Sources
 * https://news.mongabay.com/2019/09/new-species-of-giant-flying-squirrel-brings-hope-to-one-of-the-worlds-most-wanted/
 * https://www.earth.com/news/newest-species-flying-squirrel/
 * https://www.rewild.org/lost-species/namdapha-flying-squirrel?gclid=Cj0KCQjw94WZBhDtARIsAKxWG-8P0Uc5L8_-itEPETMX-S0wpo4B2jERSzb--s8Eb645Z9LI0ISh3_waAhHXEALw_wcB
 * https://www.earth.com/news/newest-species-flying-squirrel/
 * https://www.rewild.org/lost-species/namdapha-flying-squirrel?gclid=Cj0KCQjw94WZBhDtARIsAKxWG-8P0Uc5L8_-itEPETMX-S0wpo4B2jERSzb--s8Eb645Z9LI0ISh3_waAhHXEALw_wcB

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Pygmy Hog
 * Article Evaluation
 * The Wikipedia article on the Pygmy Hog gave a decent amount of information, but there is considerable room for improvement. The organization was good, and the writing was concise and organized. The article appeared to be straightforward and did not show any biased opinions. The reference list was extensive, which seemed excessive for the amount of information actually contained in the article itself. Additionally, it was noted that inline citations were lacking within the body of the article, so this is definitely an area that needs improvement. In terms of references that were cited, it was noted that two of them dated back to 1883 and 1849, whereas several others dated back to the early 2000s. Overall, although this article was fairly well written and organized, content was still lacking, as was the use of precise citations to enhance its credibility.
 * Sources
 * http://www.edgeofexistence.org/species/pygmy-hog/
 * https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Sus_salvanius/
 * https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/pygmy-hog
 * https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Sus_salvanius/
 * https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/pygmy-hog

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Brown Spider Monkey
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article had a decent amount of content and was nicely organized in terms of its headings. The writing was clear, concise, and easy to read, and the quality was good. The content was relevant and was not underdeveloped…however, I believe there is still room for additional material to be added. One thing I noted was in certain sections, such as the physical description of the brown spider monkey, there were very few in-line citations. The overall tone of the article was informative, and did not show bias. It was strictly factual, with citations being used appropriately. The reference list brought up the appropriate sources when double checked, and the references utilized were relatively recent with the exception of two of them which dated back to 1997 and 2005. Overall, I thought this article was the most well written of the three articles that I have reviewed.
 * Sources
 * https://neprimateconservancy.org/brown-headed-spider-monkey/
 * https://animalia.bio/brown-spider-monkey
 * https://neprimateconservancy.org/brown-headed-spider-monkey/
 * https://animalia.bio/brown-spider-monkey

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources