User:C.bellavance20/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.

Planula

 * Planula
 * Very short, could use a lot more information; only has developmental and locomotion categories, which could also be expanded upon themselves.
 * Sources: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/271/mode/2up
 * https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/50/5/734/643208?login=false
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00427-008-0239-7
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00427-008-0239-7

Siliceous sponge

 * Siliceous sponge
 * This article is also relatively short, including only the sections of ecology and systematics. This could definitely be improved upon, and lengthened.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC55517/
 * The other reference is not available by the link included.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC55517/
 * The other reference is not available by the link included.

Japanese spider crab

 * Japanese spider crab
 * Much more thorough than the other two articles, however there is more information one can add to each category in the article.
 * Sources:
 * 23 references:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061453/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222939100770781
 * There are many other sources however most of them are credible, just pretty dated, so it may be beneficial to review what information is still relevant within the article.
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222939100770781
 * There are many other sources however most of them are credible, just pretty dated, so it may be beneficial to review what information is still relevant within the article.

Giant squid

 * Giant squid
 * This article is very detailed and has many different sections throughout. It touches upon a lot of history as well as its scientific identity. There is always more to add to an article, however this one would be much more difficult to add to because it already has so much information.
 * Sources
 * https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/163265/991505
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304853/
 * https://tonmo.com/articles/giant-squid-and-colossal-squid-fact-sheet.18/
 * While some of these sources are scholarly, others are just simple websites that may not be considered as credible.
 * https://tonmo.com/articles/giant-squid-and-colossal-squid-fact-sheet.18/
 * While some of these sources are scholarly, others are just simple websites that may not be considered as credible.

Pacific Sea Nettle

 * Chrysaora fuscescens
 * This article seems to be relatively credible, and the length is a bit short, however it is still informational. Some aspects can definitely be more detailed, or more sections could be introduced in the article such as its environment, or more about feeding/habitat, and texonomy, as well as more visuals if possible.
 * Sources
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20131001072633/http://jellieszone.com/chrysaora.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20081012064503/http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/animalguide/tropicaldiver/pacificseanettle.aspx
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20081004214633/http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/default.asp?hOri=1&inhab=119
 * More sources than just these three, but none of them seem to be journals, most are .org websites which can be somewhat trustworthy, but it may be better if the majority were derived from something more academic and peer-edited.
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20081004214633/http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/default.asp?hOri=1&inhab=119
 * More sources than just these three, but none of them seem to be journals, most are .org websites which can be somewhat trustworthy, but it may be better if the majority were derived from something more academic and peer-edited.