User:Lrokos/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

 * Marine biology
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- I would say the content is relevant to the topic, but it could be organized way better. The section about biological oceanography is interesting, but also not 100% necessary. In addition, the beginning part of the article discusses how marine life contributes to a lot of aspects in our life, including recreation and tourism, but it is never mentioned again.
 * Is it written neutrally? -- The article is written neutrally, but the sentences are very choppy, and it doesn't always flow together.
 * Does each claim have a citation? -- Each claim seems to have a citation, and the use of linking other Wikipedia articles is prevalent in this article.
 * Are the citations reliable? -- All of the citations look reliable, either being from primary sources or institutes that study marine life.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? -- It does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps
 * Sources
 * Tourism education
 * Climate change impact on marine life
 * Tourism education
 * Climate change impact on marine life

Option 2

 * Amazon rainforest
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- All of the content appears relevant, but the beginning section of the article could do a better job of summing up the topics included. There is a whole section about climate change in the article, and it is not mentioned at all in the first introduction section. I also think the indigenous groups living in the rainforest could be discussed a little more.
 * Is it written neutrally? -- The article seems to be written neutrally -- my only complaint is some grammar issues.
 * Does each claim have a citation? -- Each claim seems to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable? --- All of the citations look reliable.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? -- The article tackles on of Wikipedia's equity gaps by talking about the indigenous people living in the rainforest.
 * Sources
 * Indigenous knowledge
 * Agribusiness in Brazil
 * Indigenous knowledge
 * Agribusiness in Brazil

Option 3

 * Portuguese man o' war
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- All of the content is relevant, but the introduction section could be better written to show what the article actually discusses and goes in-depth about, like distribution and prey.
 * Is it written neutrally? -- The article is written neutrally, but the talk page includes a lot of notes about terminology contradictions and clarifications, which can cause things to be confusing.
 * Does each claim have a citation? -- Each claim seems to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable? -- All of the citations look reliable.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? -- The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Sources
 * Toxicology of venom
 * Sources
 * Toxicology of venom

Option 4

 * Sea otter conservation
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- All of the content is relevant, and it does a good job of setting up background information as well as look into different states and their conservation efforts. I would say the layout of the article could be improved though.
 * Is it written neutrally? -- The article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation? -- Each claim seems to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable? -- The reference section needs a lot of work, as the citations are not formatted well (ex: Nickerson. pp. 47-48 is not a good citation).
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? -- The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Sources
 * Sea Otters and Exxon
 * Disease and Sea Otters
 * Sea Otters and Exxon
 * Disease and Sea Otters

Option 5
Sea lion


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- The content is relevant, but I feel like some of the content could be cut out, since many of the studies cited seem unnecessary. It's good knowledge, but it doesn't seem like Wikipedia readers need to know all of it.
 * Is it written neutrally? -- The article is written neutrally, and it contains a lot of information about scientific knowledge and studies, as previously mentioned, which is good for giving a complete view on sea lions.
 * Does each claim have a citation? -- Each claim seems to have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable? -- The citations all look reliable.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? -- The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Sources
 * Sea Lion Comprehension
 * Food and Feeding Behavior
 * Food and Feeding Behavior