User:LEGoldberg/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
 * Atrazine


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is good, but could use significantly more information on the Greenville vs. Syngenta case, as well as on FDA handling of this herbicide in America. Citations look good. Equity issues do not appear to be represented.


 * Sources
 * https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/atrazine-lawsuit-overview.html#:~:text=The%20class%20action%20lawsuit%20was,for%20compensation%20have%20been%20filed.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Patent Troll


 * Article Evaluation
 * This one looks okay. The content is relevant, the article is neutral, and the citations look good. The only thing I'd say is that the article does not seem to address the equity gaps Wikipedia suffers from.


 * Sources
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333430491_Research_Paper_Patent_Trolls_Benjamin_Franco_FINAL_REVISED_12_2018

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Public Opinion on Climate Change


 * Article Evaluation
 * Name of article: Public opinion on climate change I have chosen this article to evaluate, because it is a fascinating topic of discussion, and because it has been expressly approved by my instructor.  Lead  The lead of this article is incredibly short; I would argue that, while it does include a concise introductory sentence, it does not effectively describe the article's major sections nor include information that is not present in the article. I would suggest that the lead for this article be lengthened, providing a clear roadmap for the sections that will be covered in the article.  Content  The article's content is relevant to the topic, but I would argue that some of it is not terribly up-to-date. The first section after the lead opens with a poll from 2007-2008. I am also confused as to the difference between that poll and the one mentioned in the following paragraph, which was supposedly conducted by Gallup from 2008-2009, and was conducted in 127 countries (as opposed to the 128 countries of the one previously mentioned). I am unsure as to whether this is a typo, or whether Gallup conducted two separate polls... The second mention should include a link/citation to clear this up. Aside from that, I would argue that the article is very comprehensive, and that it even addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, in that it addresses historically underrepresented populations (Africa, and other third world countries).  Tone and Balance  This article is mostly neutral, and I would argue that there is not much that the editors could have done to make it more so. This is a very tricky subject, and one which I think it is tough to be neutral about when you are well-read and educated. I would not sat that there are any claims heavily biased in one direction or another, although, as I said earlier, it could appear that way to a reader who does not believe in climate change (although I doubt that such a person would be able to read). I will say, however, that the viewpoints of high-profile western institutions seem to be overrepresented, and that it would be interesting to provide sources from some less-represented groups. The article does not, however, appear to attempt to persuade its readers to or away from any particular viewpoints (at least not intentionally).  Sources and References  All facts in the article seem to be backed up by reliable sources of information, which are impartial and independent. These sources are largely current, thorough, and diverse, although I will say that more diversity could be achieved in terms of the types of backgrounds that the sources' authors come from. The source links do all seem to work, though, so that's good (at least the ones I tried).  Organization  The article is well-written; it is clear, organized, and easy to read. I did not notice any grammatical errors in reading it, and it is broken down into sections in a logical manner, which is easy to follow, and easy to understand.  Images and Media  The article does contain a few images, and they do aid in understanding the topic. Some of them are graphics detailing densities of high understanding of global warming, and one of them is a sign used by protesters in London. All images are well-captioned, and all adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Furthermore, these images are laid out in a visually appealing way.  Talk Page  The talk page features conversations about whether or not the research that a previous editor cited was understood properly by said editor. This potential lack of understanding on the part of that previous editor led a later editor to change the corresponding section to match the source material more closely, and to detail the reasons why in the 'Talk' page of the article. The article seems to be rated C-Class, and of Mid-importance according to the WikiProject Environment, C-Class and of High-importance by the WikiProject Climate change, and C-Class and of Mid-importance by the WikiProject Sociology.  Overall Impressions  The status of the article is that it is largely complete.  In terms of its strengths, the article seems to be quite effective in its ability to assess numerous studies at once, and maintain that all sources are the most relevant ones available.  This article can be improved by strengthening the Lead section, as well as by clarifying some of the sources such as the Gallup polls from 2007-2009.  I would rate the article a 7 out of 10 for completeness. More complete than most articles on Wikipedia, but could use further development of its sources, Lead paragraph, as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the material it is sourcing.  Question  Why is climate change so poorly understood in the world?


 * Sources
 * https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

Option 4

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

Option 5

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