User:Bettchlk618/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: Drug-Induced Nonautoimmune Hemolytic Anemia
 * Drug-induced nonautoimmune hemolytic anemia
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has a lot of room for improvement. It is incredibly short with no sections other than an overview and two out-of-date articles (although they appear to be credible). Each article is cited once in the article, despite it being three paragraphs (albiet short paragraphs) long. There are, however, hyperlinks that lead to other related topics to expand understanding, so at least there's that. It is rated mid-importance, so it is a topic that should be elaborated on beyond what it is right now, but I'm not sure if this article will be feasible for the ENPH 450 project. It may be a bit too broad/bare-bones to consider.
 * This article has a lot of room for improvement. It is incredibly short with no sections other than an overview and two out-of-date articles (although they appear to be credible). Each article is cited once in the article, despite it being three paragraphs (albiet short paragraphs) long. There are, however, hyperlinks that lead to other related topics to expand understanding, so at least there's that. It is rated mid-importance, so it is a topic that should be elaborated on beyond what it is right now, but I'm not sure if this article will be feasible for the ENPH 450 project. It may be a bit too broad/bare-bones to consider.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title: Environmental Enteropathy
 * Environmental enteropathy
 * Article Evaluation
 * This artilce is definately an improvement from Option 1- many people have contributed to the article already, so it's not like starting from square one. It has a fair amount of reliable, semi-up-to-date articles (within the past 5 years), each article is cited throughout, hyperlinks to other articles are abundant, and the article is broken down into categories. It is rated start-class with high-importance by WikiProject Medicine and c-class with mid-importance by WikiProject Sanitation. I think this could be a good article to consider. There isn't an epidemiology section right now, and the prospect of adding one seems promissing. I honestly think an epi section would be very useful to contribue to this article, too. There was a user in the talk page that expressed interest in adding one, but as of right now there hasn't been any progress on that.
 * This artilce is definately an improvement from Option 1- many people have contributed to the article already, so it's not like starting from square one. It has a fair amount of reliable, semi-up-to-date articles (within the past 5 years), each article is cited throughout, hyperlinks to other articles are abundant, and the article is broken down into categories. It is rated start-class with high-importance by WikiProject Medicine and c-class with mid-importance by WikiProject Sanitation. I think this could be a good article to consider. There isn't an epidemiology section right now, and the prospect of adding one seems promissing. I honestly think an epi section would be very useful to contribue to this article, too. There was a user in the talk page that expressed interest in adding one, but as of right now there hasn't been any progress on that.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title: Neonatal Alloimmune Thrombocytopenia
 * Neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article seems like a potentaily good candiate for the ENPH project. It has differentiated categories, many sources, and is rated c-class with mid-importance. While it seems like the sources are credible, many of them are out of date. There also isn't a whole lot to look at on the talk page, although there have been little discussions here and there. There isn't an epidemiology section yet, so the addition of one may prove beneficial.
 * This article seems like a potentaily good candiate for the ENPH project. It has differentiated categories, many sources, and is rated c-class with mid-importance. While it seems like the sources are credible, many of them are out of date. There also isn't a whole lot to look at on the talk page, although there have been little discussions here and there. There isn't an epidemiology section yet, so the addition of one may prove beneficial.


 * Sources

Option 4

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

Option 5

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