User:Czele004/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
 * Blockchain


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has a well written and informative intro to start with; considering this type of topic is very broad and new, it is astounding how much information this article has on this topic. It first goes into the history of this type of technology which documents it with great accuracy. It then writes about the structure of a "blockchain" and how they are built. The last 3 sections then cover the uses, types of blockchains, and academic research. Overall, this article is very well written and has good readability all throughout. Everything in this article is very well cited with over 100 citations on this article alone.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Treehouse (company)


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article does not have too much information on this specific company but it does cover what needs to be covered to be a relevant Wikipedia article. The article intro contains information that is not present in the rest of the article but is still a well written and functions as a proper intro towards this topic.I would have addressed the history of this topic first rather than speak about the companies project for better readability but it still reads fine. The citations in this article are also still accurate and detail the information necessary to inform about this company.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * EPANET


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article does not have too many citations but it does have good readability along with have a well written intro. This specific article does not have a history section which I think would greatly benefit this topic; to find out the reason behind constructing this software package and how it came into existence. This article then separates its parts into features, simulations, its toolkit, and its compatibility. Other than the history section critique, this article has good readability overall and does not have any grammatical/spelling errors either. It does contain a couple references but I would like to see a couple more on this topic if possible.


 * Sources

Option 4

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

Option 5

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