User:Brynnams/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
 * Multi-Component Gas Analyzer System


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The articles content is relative to teh the topic. It provides very basic coverage of what a multi-GAS is and vague information about how/where it has been used.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * The article is neutral, not indication of any bias.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Every sentence has its own citation. Besides the article being very short it is well cited.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations all come from reputable journals and textbook. There are only four references and they are fairly dated so it would be best to expand and find newer references.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No, I do not believe this covers an equity gap.
 * This article is rated as a STUB and has not been given a rating on an importance scale. Some pros of the article include that every statement/sentence has a reliable reference. The article is also easily understood. Cons of the article include: dated citations, very short, only a lead paragraph, no subheadings. I also believe including better images would also be helpful, the current image shows multiple gas monitoring instruments which distracts from what the article is about.
 * This article is rated as a STUB and has not been given a rating on an importance scale. Some pros of the article include that every statement/sentence has a reliable reference. The article is also easily understood. Cons of the article include: dated citations, very short, only a lead paragraph, no subheadings. I also believe including better images would also be helpful, the current image shows multiple gas monitoring instruments which distracts from what the article is about.


 * Sources
 * https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1114-z

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Volcanic Gas


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic. The article covers multiple aspects and topics in the broader category of volcanic gases.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, the article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * No, there are entire sub-headings that have no references. When looking at the edit history it appears some people may remove citatiosn for being "redundant".
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * The citations are reliable, but it does seem like some could be updated and entire amount of references for the article should be expanded.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * Overall this article provides a good amount of coverage. Primary issue lies within its lack of citations and amount of citations for the large quanity of information provided.


 * Sources
 * The 2015 version of Encyclopdeia of Volcanoes could be added and replace the 2000 version used as a main reference in the article. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-00175-7

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Valles Caldera


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article is relevant to the topic of Valles Caldera, but there is a strong favor towards the recreational, cultural, and hisory side of the caldera. The science of the area could be greatly expanded.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes the article is neutral.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Most of the claims have a citation but more could be added.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Citations come from reputable sources but most of them are very dated and could be updated.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * I think this article could be imporved on by adding more the science of the area. While Valles Caldera is a place of recreation it has a lot more significance in the volcano science world than I believe the article portrays.


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Uturuncu


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content provides a very good in-depth reveiw of the information known about Uturuncu.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, every claim has a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * This article has over 120 citations. Each citation appears to come from a reliable journal. There is also a wide range of dates, making it appear that the entire history of what is known is well covered.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No
 * This article is very well written and has a large amount of reliable resources. Not much looks like needs to be changed in the article until new information comes out.


 * Sources
 * n/a

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Caldera


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?


 * Sources