User:Jagerismydogsname7151/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

 * Spillover infection:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article talks about how spillover infection can occur between different host species and different populations of the same host species.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * This article is written neutrally so long as we are operating under the assumption that the facts that the article presents are true. But all in all, there are no opinions listed in the article.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, this article is very well-sourced.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, all 27 of the sources are peer-reviewed journal articles. 25 of these have a DOI number and the two that don't are sourced from the CDC.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I would say that it doesn't due to the fact that I wouldn't consider spillover infection to be an underrepresented topic (although there are still gaps in knowledge).
 * 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.
 * This article has an excellent amount of engagement and was a project for someone in a class similar to ours.
 * Sources:This article is very well-sourced with 27 credible sources.

Option 2

 * SARS-CoV-2:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything in this article is relevant to SARS-CoV-2.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, when talking about potentially controversial topics, the article gives both sides of the story and only mentions facts and not opinions.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, this article is very well-sourced.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, most citations are journal articles and the ones that aren't are still from reliable sources.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * It talks a little bit about xenophobia towards China due to SARS-CoV-2 originating there but other than that it doesn't address much else.
 * 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.
 * The talk page talks a lot about the lab leak theory and other conspiracy theories.
 * Sources:This article is very well-sourced with 184 credible sources.

Option 3

 * Zoonosis:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article talks only about zoonosis.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, there are no direct opinions in this article.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, this article is well-sourced.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, most have DOI numbers, and the ones that don't are still from reliable sources.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No, it only talks about zoonosis and doesn't mention anything about how zoonosis can affect 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.
 * The talk page indicates that there are many contributors to this article.
 * Sources:This article is very well-sourced with 84 credible sources.

Option 4

 * Cross-species transmission:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything that is said in the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, there are no opinions listed (assuming that all facts are universally recognized).
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not all claims have a citation. Most of the claims that don't have citations I know to be true from reading my Gen Bio textbook, so they are believable but it would be better if they had citations.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, they all either have a DOI or are from a reliable source.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No, it doesn't talk much about this in the article.
 * 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.
 * Because this is such a new article, there is not much on the talk page but this article is part of several WikiProjects.
 * Sources:There are 28 credible sources.

Option 5

 * Infection:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * For the most part yes, there is a brief mention of the difference between infection and infectious disease in which the article talks about infectious disease. Although this is off-topic it still makes sense to include this in the article so that the readers have a clear picture of what the article is talking about.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Assuming that all facts stated are true, there are no opinions that are mentioned in the article.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes, each claim has a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, all of the articles either have a DOI number or are from another reliable source.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No, this article doesn't talk much about anything like that.
 * 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.
 * There is an excellent discussion on the talk page.
 * Sources:There are 116 reliable sources.