User:Lanerino/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
 * Aqueous solution


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a level 5 vital article in the Science, Chemistry section. Also, it is in the start class and has high importance. For starters, it only has one short section with one annotated source. Since it only has one source, it is not verified which could be problematic since the article has over 350 average views per day. The talk page only has one post on it, and it is an unanswered question from 2017. There is a lot of information without sources, and that seemed very odd to me. On top of the informational critiques and addictions that can be done, I am already brainstorming some cosmetic changes to the page. From what I can tell, there is a lot of room for creative and necessary improvement for this article.

GLH comments: this is an article that really does need some work.
 * Sources
 * https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_Kentucky/UK%3A_CHE_103_-_Chemistry_for_Allied_Health_(Soult)/Chapters/Chapter_7%3A_Solids%2C_Liquids%2C_and_Gases/7.5%3A_Aqueous_Solutions
 * https://scifinder-n.cas.org/searchDetail/reference/61f736b14c083835afda2e0a/referenceDetails

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Mixture


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a level 4 vital article that is in the start class and has mid importance. This page has over 350 views per day, and the talk page is very saturated with critiques from the past several years. Most of the posts are from 2007, with a few coming from more recent years. The most prevalent topic on the talk page is the merger of the homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures wiki page and this one. This merger gave the article a substantial increase in information and added one reliable source to the page. The other source in this subsection is messed up and I am unable to access it, which I believe can be fixed. The article has a good introduction, but I have a concern about the sources for the intro. It seems that the sources for the intro are non-significant, because they only encompass one sentence. This is true for a few sources in this article, am I correct in making that judgement of the sources being non-significant? Besides the non-significance, the sources are reliable and the information they provide is relevant.

GLH comments: I was surprised to learn that this page is a merger of separate pages on homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures. The page is a bit of a mess and needs work.
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Inorganic Compound


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a level 4 vital article in the start class and has high importance. There is a lot of traffic on the talk page that spans across the last decade. All the information on the talk page seems very confusing to me, considering the article is very short with 10 sources. From what I can tell from the talk page, there was a big misunderstanding with the article; there used to be a lot of organic chemistry information in the article that completely contradicted the topic. With this misunderstanding, some posts from several years ago are very hostile. This one person said "I think you need to check yourself". The talk page distracts wiki editors from the article itself, so that's why I think the article is short and not fully informative.

I'm not as enthusiastic about this page but I will add it to the list. Inorganic chemistry is an example of a brief but effective B-level page.
 * Sources
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SFD30BvPBhoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=information+about+inorganic+compounds&ots=urKniHwQLr&sig=YmZIDriKTIkT1mlBFkrNEttojTM#v=onepage&q=information%20about%20inorganic%20compounds&f=false
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02855781

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Substitution Reaction


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a level 4 vital article in the start class and has top importance. The article has a lot of good information, but only backed by three reliable sources. The introduction is well-written and there are a few subsections; some with a lot of information and some with a little. Also, the talk page is very small, with a few posts from 2011 and a few from 2014, all under two sections on the page. Since this article has top importance, there is definitely room for informational improvement within the subsections. Also, I already see some changes that could be made in wording and grammar.

This is a good option. There is some good information in this article but it is not well organized.
 * Sources
 * https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cr60153a002?casa_token=aPJmU8ZznX8AAAAA:47ZnDJzKqXYGL5XS_stSLav48mpjijBiv6En5Onk6T3XsjaODof3WQfVLEhiTuVDimu0xP4x-_zyv6yMBw
 * https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cr960134o

Option 5

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