User:JustinC7/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
 * Working Memory


 * Article Evaluation
 * To begin with, I think the article has a good lead section, as it is straight forward and lets the reader know that working memory is different than short-term memory. This article features a lot of content, ranging from history to theories concerning working memory. From my brief scan, the information I read appears to match with that of what I picked up in class. With that being said, it may be more difficult to find content to add to the article. Maybe there can be more added to the "History" and "Genetics" sections, as they may be a little underrepresented. Then again, there may be less information due to the fact that there is less information. The article doesn't seem to be biased towards one view and is just informing the reader of the concept as a whole. There are 160 sources to this article; I have clicked on some and they do work. But, I have noticed that there are multiple citations needed throughout the article, including one as early the section after the lead. After taking a look at the Talk Page, it appears that the people who think this article is "good" or along those lines are those that aren't familiar with working memory in general. There is a user, who has been active in the Talk Page since the early 2000s, who thinks that this article is a "shocker" and is not happy with the article as a whole. The good thing is that most of the edits were around 2005, meaning that the article has improved since then thanks to multiple WIKI editors. After learning that Wikipedia is more trustworthy than I once thought, I would have no problem trusting the information this article provides. Sure, it doesn't have an A grade or a high importance, but this article has had serious editors since the early 2000s. If I was a person trying to find out basic information about working memory, I would say that this article would be a good place to start. With that being said, I haven't exactly done a deep dive and read thoroughly, so my judgement can definitely be wrong.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Change Blindness


 * Article Evaluation
 * Personally, I would find this article useful, as it provides a detailed look at the topic. I learned about it briefly in class and this article practically features everything that was discussed in class, and more. I think that the article contains a good lead, has relevant and good content, and is not biased towards a certain position. On the other hand, I checked the talked page and there are problems concerning clarity, organization of the article, and its sources. It appears that the article could use some work, but that does not mean that it is bad or unreliable. It also looks like this article was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, where a few students edited it. I may end up editing this article for my class project, as I want to help improve it.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Testing Effect


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article contains the least amount of information and support out of the ones that I have looked over, which is probably why it is labeled as a "start-class" on its quality scale. To me, the lead could use some more work, as I had to read more of the article to get a general understanding of what the testing effect is. As previously mentioned, this article does not contain a lot of information, but that does not mean it is bad. This could be a good article to work on, as I can add new information to help others gain a better understanding of the topic. It's content is relevant to the topic, but I think it needs more to improve the quality of the article. The article is written from a neutral point of view; I did not see any biases. The last section (Considerations) may be underrepresented, as it only contains a few sentences. There are a total of 119 sources for this article, and the ones I clicked on seemed to work. But, some required being purchased to be able to access them, which is a downside. Clarity wise, I found a few sentences from the section "Repeated Testing" a bit confusing and hard to understand. I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like they can be reworded better. The Talk Page isn't negative from what I saw; the editors there are giving helpful opinions, suggestions, and edits to help this article get more attention. Overall, I think this article has potential to be great.


 * Sources

Option 4

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

Option 5

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