User:Evanescenth/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
 * Coconut palms in California


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is mostly relevant to its topic - however it spends a lot of time alluding to a specific areas that coconut palms are found, rather than the coconut palms itself. This could be due to the fact that there seem to have been very few coconut palms in California.
 * The article is written neutrally and objectively - it does not argue the writer's perspective, and just provides information about why the California climate is not suited for growing coconut palms, as well as the specific locations they have been found in California.
 * There are several claims throughout the article - firstly, that the climate in California does not suit coconut palms; this is supported by three sources. Then, when describing where those few coconut palms can be found, there are citations to two articles.
 * Despite citing sources, these citations do not seem reliable. Two of them seem to be written by a single person, and the other with multiple contributors - none of them scientific reports. They seem more like blog posts.
 * There are also several pictures depicting the coconut palm trees and their locations, which I think is a good addition as well.
 * Overall, it seems as though there is a lack of reliable information about coconut palm trees on the Internet that could be used for this Wikipedia article. This fact may also point towards the short length of the article itself, and thus make it difficult for me to add onto it as well.


 * Sources
 * https://www.palmpedia.net/palmsforcal/Cocos_nucifera
 * https://www.gardenguides.com/12434887-will-coconut-trees-grow-in-california.html

Option 2

 * Article title
 * California coastal salt marsh


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article's content is relevant to its topic, describing only the plants and habitats of the topic, but does not elaborate or speak on much more. I think if I were to add to this article, there could be many details to add on.
 * The article is written professionally and without any bias. This is evident because the author objectively talks about the different species that can be found in the location.
 * While there are claims in the article, they are not cited very well. There are no links to specific sources used when writing each claim, though there are many links to several other Wikipedia pages.
 * There are few sources. One of them is not cited within the article. This points to the lack of content in this Wikipedia article topic as well.
 * There are also no visual representations of anything described by the article. I think there could've been several opportunities to insert pictures - for example of the plants or animals that were written about, and that is something I would consider doing myself if I were to edit this article.
 * Overall, I feel as though there is much to be added to this article, as there are many scientific articles about California coastal salt marshes I was able to find, even with a simple Google search. So this seems like a promising article to work with.


 * Sources
 * https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/34828
 * https://www.science.gov/topicpages/c/california+salt+marsh

Option 3

 * Article title
 * San Francisco Salt Bay Ponds


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is written neutrally and is on-topic. It touches on both the current aspects of the area - like the plants, animals - as well as the history and a restoration project of the location. This is all done objectively with a clear aim to convey information rather than argue any perspectives.
 * The claims in the article are cited quite well - there are multiple and varied citations backing up each claim, and many Wikipedia pages are also cited to provide further context about specific jargon.
 * The citation list for this article is reasonably long. The author has clearly done a lot of research into the topic, and has also subsequently condensed that into an article.
 * Something I dislike about this article is the way it's formatted. Some of the pictures have some sort of border that leaves space for an image caption, while others do not have this. I noticed that only the pictures on the right side of the Wikipedia page were formatted, but there are in-text formatted pictures that I think should also be formatted the same way.
 * Overall, this article is representative of its Wikipedia "Class" - it isn't very long, and lacks formatting of a well built-out page. The topics could go into more detail as well, as it seems as though there are many reliable sources that could be looked at to add to each section.


 * Sources
 * https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/sir20225113 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228737254_Management_and_conservation_of_San_Francisco_Bay_salt_ponds_effects_of_pond_salinity_area_tide_and_season_on_Pacific_Flyway_waterbirds

Option 4

 * Article title
 * California condor


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is well-written, objective, and covers considerable breadth and depth of topics. It writes on the condor's appearance, taxonomy, relationship with humans, and many more topics that may be of interest for anyone looking into the California condor.
 * This seems like a well-cited article where there is at least one source for the claims about the species. Nearly every two sentences, there is a citation, which seems like a great step up from the articles I was critiquing previously.
 * The citation list for this article is almost as long as some of the longer sections itself. This points to a lot of research being done about the topic, and also explains how many of the claims are backed up as well.
 * I also like that there are pictures for pretty much all the sections. Each of them add to the topic they are under, and all of them also have captions.
 * Overall, the article is very thorough in describing many topics about the California condor. I think it would be difficult for me to add to this article - not only because it is well-written and in-detail already, but because it seems like it has covered many topics as well. I think this would be a good page to look to as an example for how I should build on my page of choice.


 * Sources
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74894-0
 * https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/112/7/569/6412509

Option 5

 * Article title
 * California grizzly bear


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is objectively written, with less breadth and depth compared to the previously evaluated Wikipedia page. It still talks about several aspects of the species, but I think there is potential to talk about, particularly, the grizzly bear's reintroduction, as that section of the page is very short.
 * The page seems fairly well-cited. While the citations are a bit more sparse throughout the sentences, the research done on the topic is reflected in the writing and linking to other Wikipedia pages.
 * The citation list for this page is also quite long - it seems like if there were this many available sources with information about the topic, there may be many more details that can be addressed in each of the sections. Many of these citations seem reliable - there are scientific papers, books, etc.
 * I like that there are pictures in most of the sections - however I think if I were to edit this article, I would try to add a few more.
 * Overall, the page and its topic have been well flushed out, but the quality and content is lacking compared to the previous page on the California condor - both in the citations and the breadth of topics addressed.


 * Sources
 * https://www.calgrizzly.com/about
 * https://www.kcbx.org/environment-and-energy/2022-11-04/could-california-bring-back-grizzly-bears-ucsb-researcher-says-its-not-impossible