User:Crobial/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.

Their considerations:


 * 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)?
 * 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.

Option 1

 * Oral Ecology
 * Article Evaluation:
 * - The lead is too long and not strict enough to the topic title.
 * - Better wording in general can also be used, such as more precise and technically accurate terms. The terms currently are too general.
 * - There are also too many quotes from sources, rather than paraphrasing.
 * -it is not (generally) clearly written or concise.
 * - Many sentences are lacking in a citation that is needed
 * -The phrase "our" mouths repeated - seems too personal
 * -Some of the citations themselves are suspect or not properly cited.
 * Sources
 * -as said above, needs more cited sentences and some are strange, should be replaced or the citation should be fixed.
 * **this article is my preference, it has the most work to be done and I can see clear ways to improve (making the text more accurate, professional, reduce direct quotations, add citations, fix existing citations, etc)
 * -as said above, needs more cited sentences and some are strange, should be replaced or the citation should be fixed.
 * **this article is my preference, it has the most work to be done and I can see clear ways to improve (making the text more accurate, professional, reduce direct quotations, add citations, fix existing citations, etc)
 * **this article is my preference, it has the most work to be done and I can see clear ways to improve (making the text more accurate, professional, reduce direct quotations, add citations, fix existing citations, etc)

Option 2

 * Microbial population biology
 * Article Evaluation
 * - lead is good
 * -Only two sections: "Distinguishing from other biological disciplines" and "Microbial Population Biology Gordon conference", seems lacking in a section specifically for the actual description of microbial population biology.
 * -the meetings section is not up to date
 * Sources
 * -sources are fine but more could probably be added
 * Sources
 * -sources are fine but more could probably be added
 * -sources are fine but more could probably be added

Option 3

 * Ida Ørskov
 * Article Evaluation
 * - some grammatical errors
 * -very short article, brief biography for a seemingly important scientist!
 * - But I am not sure if I will be able to elaborate on her life, there is a chance not much has been written about her.
 * Sources
 * -Sources are fine, I would need to see if any more info is out there to source
 * Sources
 * -Sources are fine, I would need to see if any more info is out there to source

Option 4

 * Audrey Cahn
 * Article Evaluation
 * - there are no sections or section headings (it appears at one point they tried to make a section heading but it is just regular text)
 * - some grammatical errors
 * - Very weirdly: the article is written twice in a row, but not identically????
 * - needs to be edited, and the two biographies combined.
 * Sources
 * -I think the sources are adequate
 * Sources
 * -I think the sources are adequate

Option 5

 * Hildred Mary Butler
 * Article Evaluation
 * - lead is lacking importance
 * - extremely short, could possibly be expanded upon
 * Sources
 * - hopefully could add more sources
 * Sources
 * - hopefully could add more sources