User:Jy865/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
 * Living medicine:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it provides a brief introduction statement about living medicines and examples of living medicines, and then a brief overview of the development of living medicines and its applications to cancer therapy. The article could potentially provide some hints to what the rest of the article will be covering (e.g. the development and applications of living medicines). The article could also potentially provide some more details pertaining to other applications and historical/current developments in research as it states that the topic is an extremely active research area.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Generally, yes, considering there are no particular arguments made for the topic. However, the article could consider addressing in further and quantity the potential benefits and limitations of living medicine.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * The article is very short. Some claims have citations, and those which do have multiple citations (up to 9 citations for 1 claim).
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Most articles appear to be from peer-reviewed sources or news articles (most news articles being specifically science news-oriented web pages. Citations in this sense could potentially be pared down a little to focus more on peer-reviewed journal sources instead.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * 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 are no discussions occurring on the page besides edits to the article.
 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666138121000086
 * https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1206843?casa_token=ZOufhzKnBdUAAAAA%3AGvQ4l0O4Mawr2ot_d0E19qfxTvq4F2fgOqHgiSJC70C4we2Bh_kGUx8BMmhemXJZgmPjnKA7wYOo_NQ
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168365918300919?casa_token=emfcKTg_dr4AAAAA:0oBWgGfVDh2FzbO5WD33TKQeLJXlsK5J59Mc0pivTi3kkF6DJ0Uze_OHNizE_g0fnAd9DbeKlxs
 * https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00175/full?trk=public_post_comment-text
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003306201730021X?casa_token=2dKTG_ViYWgAAAAA:K3FzBM2AwyG5P6AgFib_cPclxi3je4upUnbsvQsVC64DiguJyElZeB5d_js-dw4Cn5qdlw23G2E
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195025/

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Pink algae:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article provides an introduction for what pink algae is and how it is formed, how to prevent pink algae, and treatment options for pink algae. This article could also potentially provide some hints to what the rest of the article will be covering. Some more information could potentially be added to the treatment and prevention sections, and the article could include some more general information pertaining to the significant of pink algae.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes; the article is quite short and there are generally no arguments made (it is more informative in tone overall).
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not all claims have a citation but there are some.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Not quite; the citations are from relevant topically-dedicated sources (e.g. poolcenter.com, ocean.si.edu) but not peer-reviewed sources.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * 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 are no discussions occurring on the page besides revisions to the article.
 * Sources
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keerthivarman-G-Subramanian/publication/370403452_Incidence_of_Pink_Water_in_Chennai_India-An_Alarming_Bloom/links/644e2c295762c95ac362c8f5/Incidence-of-Pink-Water-in-Chennai-India-An-Alarming-Bloom.pdf
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737919600056X
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196318311790?casa_token=8HUfy61l0YUAAAAA:14u_G-J7L0q7imnE0yr1oE99YVTKYFsWGNG2qcGboWkQLARTqVxfhMcQAzm5HRSzQC_JSZVEJAk
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01874.x?casa_token=cm8NRyaYmIIAAAAA%3Ats73qLEesmnmHjrP8KnsAoL9uXmYPjvq_8LjsqapWPRFLe2XWnSXik_3P7npGtnkEZkzcjnQF9gfQcg
 * https://iwaponline.com/wst/article/85/1/104/85574/Nitrogen-and-phosphorus-removal-efficiency-and

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Slime flux:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article provides a brief introduction on what slime flux is and what it is caused by, followed by descriptions for its cause and causal agents, treatment, background, and significance, and a table with species most likely to be affected by slime flux. The organization seems to be a little redundant and ordered in a backwards sequence (i.e. broad to specific to broad), but otherwise is relatively comprehensive.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, though the article overall does not take a particular stance on things and focuses on informing the audience.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not quite. Some statements are needing citation as indicated in the text. There are many citations mostly dedicated to the table of species impacted by slime flux.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Likely yes; most citations appear to be from university sources or relevant, official, topically-dedicated sources (e.g. government websites like USDA Forest Service).
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * 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 only discussion was pertaining to the addition of the background and significance sections to make the page more relevant to readers not of a professional biology background.


 * Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/42567347?casa_token=hOBlTIhiIs4AAAAA%3AAaZ3wCcmKtWgITkD_rekvvIUUri6xeazxdrAJzxNNEDzVxVbIzIOymftxlgRDkJ_djOQEGil2HIY0r5mI5mfzX3mxdua2golDKNQF4x8-vwcrUVzseE6
 * https://academic.oup.com/femsyr/article/4/8/849/628427
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-022-01818-5
 * https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2103&context=agext
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-entomologist/article/abs/insects-emerging-from-brown-slime-fluxes-in-southern-new-england/1E9E219D119E251F469ABDE7913F31B6

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Washing meat:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article provides a brief introduction pertaining to what washing meat refers to as well and some examples of methods, followed by in a section describing its effectiveness descriptions of persisting modern usages of the technique. However, the organization of the article overall could potentially flow better (possibly including a background section, methods section to discuss the importance of this topic and expand upon the methods it introduced in the beginning) and the introduction could include a little more of a hint to what the rest of the article is going to describe.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, no particular argument and stance is made.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * No. Most articles come from news sources and from more promotional (e.g. entertainment/meant to attract news audience -- e.g. "Don't panic! Your questions on (non) washing raw chicken") one-sided perspectives.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * 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 are no discussions or updates in the Talk page.
 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174010004626?casa_token=qoqE1WfhtqsAAAAA:6ebvGmKnNYfPysANmYFd7BtZ1Gwo2RuB_AaipJRKB5qETXJHFi4ug7pvLuPfbqkuBt7tCsbeHgw
 * https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00070701111131719/full/html?casa_token=ks0jED0QwBAAAAAA:syCAqaEQc2BLoiojmwHyVRDNJ70VW_bM1b9kV0ykhu7tfXyGp4VrEpPFjOShQksVZF7o8iRFOqnAS9DY3ScuvLFQTTqGr67O4x14Ernoz5dUf_lsOSFD
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713507001569?casa_token=1zBdcQnDwGAAAAAA:buqJMzp320N2iWVGLBxI3kOzLploZna4BRxVF7eQkj1NW_KelZbW7qvT5MO0kpArkbBoDfcOmOU
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713507000977?casa_token=LTdGkFVZ7BUAAAAA:Z2JRxkrBXeLI0_de8VDzgBgMcDcCq67T1cCeZj09nqQJBPdkpO-oHM9GChuSd6pBEZ9BfpFL9Jo
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X22046932

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Swarming motility:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article provides a brief introduction pertaining to definition of swarming motility and brief examples of contexts where swarming motility may be relevant or observed, followed by larger topics on such, and then the ecological significance of swarming motility. The article could potentially be reorganized for better flow (e.g. organizing information from broad to more specific) and understanding for non-scientific communities (e.g. readers may not initially understand headings about "biosurfactant, quarum sensing and swarming", as well as including sections for a more comprehensive understanding of the topic overall (e.g. background/development, applications).
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, no particular arguments are made regarding the topic.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Most claims have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, all citations are from peer-reviewed sources.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No.
 * 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.
 * Most Talk page posts for this article are pertaining to lack of clarity and logical flow between sentences of the explanations in the article about the topic.
 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369527499000338?casa_token=4owieG5hqk8AAAAA:KXIynkrmykRVHZzyLb5raWZkcqxVKk12GhKWt-jXcR096DGW5yecFN9fKAE-nT2ujV2sdSfZSWY
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2405
 * https://enviromicro-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01747.x?casa_token=s4YDFQ-JwkYAAAAA%3A-G1qTEpYU7thugVSyRKFHFKRYwWSnjfg1trsvWCSpenZto4ae9iemVPwaVl5b7ZRV4WnRCsohPqstn0
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41745-020-00177-2
 * https://www.cell.com/biophysj/pdf/S0006-3495(10)00218-3.pdf
 * https://journals.asm.org/doi/epub/10.1128/jb.182.2.385-393.2000