User:Kassy-boi/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: Gasterophilinae
 * Article Evaluation
 * While the article is short and to-the-point, the article stayed focused on the Gasterophilinae, even mentioning and linking genera pages that should be a part of it. None of the claims in the article are biased, however, some claims seem like they should have a citation, but do not have one.  There is only one citation, and it links to a peer-reviewed research phylogenetic article and appears to be reliable.
 * While the article is short and to-the-point, the article stayed focused on the Gasterophilinae, even mentioning and linking genera pages that should be a part of it. None of the claims in the article are biased, however, some claims seem like they should have a citation, but do not have one.  There is only one citation, and it links to a peer-reviewed research phylogenetic article and appears to be reliable.


 * Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807417/

Option 2

 * Article title: Actornithophilus
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article stayed focused on Actornithophilus, although straying from the topic seems implausible in three sentences. Each statement in the article were non-opinionated, and can be concluded to be non-biased.  Each claim has its own citation, but the article does list a number of species that do not, yet, have Wikipedia pages or citations.  There were six citations total, but all of them came from the same website, phthiraptera.info, which I could not confirm to be a reliable source.
 * The article stayed focused on Actornithophilus, although straying from the topic seems implausible in three sentences. Each statement in the article were non-opinionated, and can be concluded to be non-biased.  Each claim has its own citation, but the article does list a number of species that do not, yet, have Wikipedia pages or citations.  There were six citations total, but all of them came from the same website, phthiraptera.info, which I could not confirm to be a reliable source.


 * Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/4509367?casa_token=ieD9DRXMjLEAAAAA:cxdLceQ6KBmyBGmPdwGtSxvDzIPFciMI2-5EjlFSi_aKRDPwENQ5OS5b59A8-k2lM8_ur4UnwPoIvKcNVxgq0ulOXmLUGbWOKvqqGk8kK3BAvf1S7M0O0A&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Option 3

 * Article title: Nematocida
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article remained focused on Nematocida, however, there are a couple of misspellings and grammatical errors present in it, although those are easily fixed. No biases were found within it.  Like the Gasterophilinae article, there are a few claims that seem like they should be accompanied by a citation, but do not have one.  Citation number two in the references section does not appear to match the claim about how it can kill a nematode.
 * The article remained focused on Nematocida, however, there are a couple of misspellings and grammatical errors present in it, although those are easily fixed. No biases were found within it.  Like the Gasterophilinae article, there are a few claims that seem like they should be accompanied by a citation, but do not have one.  Citation number two in the references section does not appear to match the claim about how it can kill a nematode.


 * Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23037141

Option 4

 * Article title: Gleadovia konyakianorum
 * Article Evaluation
 * The Gleadovia konyakianorum article is fixated on the parasite in the title and gives unbiased facts about them. The general description of the species does not have a citation, but I am unsure if it needs one, and links two Wikipedia articles about the genus and a plant structure.  There, also, was one misspelling.  Most citations came from websites of which I could not confirm the authenticity, but one was a peer-reviewed source.
 * The Gleadovia konyakianorum article is fixated on the parasite in the title and gives unbiased facts about them. The general description of the species does not have a citation, but I am unsure if it needs one, and links two Wikipedia articles about the genus and a plant structure.  There, also, was one misspelling.  Most citations came from websites of which I could not confirm the authenticity, but one was a peer-reviewed source.


 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title: Cuscuta japonica
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article focuses on the parasite. With one sentence in the article, it is cited, however, the citation is a broken link.
 * The article focuses on the parasite. With one sentence in the article, it is cited, however, the citation is a broken link.


 * Sources
 * https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=CUJA