User:Lucia.goldberg/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
 * Stellamedusa


 * Article Evaluation
 * Stub-class, low priority
 * Lead section:
 * This article is a stub - it contains a concise introductory sentence, but does not include a brief description of the article's major sections because the article is not divided into major sections that reflect different points of the topic.
 * The lead is just one sentence, and the only information following on the organism is a brief summation of its physical features, habitat, and range.
 * Content:
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Only one source was used. It is a reliable academic source (a nonprofit oceanographic research center) but a quick google search yielded many more potential sources for the article edit.
 * The source is also not cited properly. It is included under a section "external links" just as a link to the research center website.
 * The tone is neutral, and seems aimed at providing an unbiased overview on the Stellamedusa jellyfish.
 * The article is well-written (concise, clear, easy to read with no grammatical errors) but the information provided is very limited.
 * There is no information on what the organism eats, its social habits and place in the food chain, etc.
 * Only one image is used of the Stellamedusa. It is a good-quality, properly captioned picture.
 * Talk page discussion, edit history:
 * The article has been sparsely edited by a few editors since December 2009. Few changes have been more than correcting classifications and adding to the taxonomy.
 * The talk page only has one comment, a minor edit from 2016.
 * Improvements to be made:
 * The article can be improved upon drastically. It needs to be divided into sections, and much more general information on the species including its life cycle, place in the food chain, means of reproduction, and social habits. It is very underdeveloped. It is very underdeveloped

Sources

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=291114

https://www.aquariumofpacific.org/onlinelearningcenter/species/bumpy_jelly

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatiodn/231981740_Stellamedusa_ventana_a_new_mesopelagic_scyphomedusa_from_the_eastern_Pacific_representing_a_new_subfamily_the_Stellamedusinae

https://www.mbari.org/new-bumpy-jelly-found-in-deep-sea/

https://www.sealifebase.se/summary/Stellamedusa-ventana.html

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Coastal giant salamander


 * Article Evaluation
 * Start-class, mid-importance
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. It has a concise introductory sentence, and is divided into the categories description, behavior, range, habit and conservation.
 * The information under some of these categories is limited. For example, the range section is only one sentence.
 * The piece is written neutrally, and each claim is cited. The sources referenced are reliable academic publications.
 * There were no/few grammatical errors, and the article was well-written.
 * The article has undergone edits from various editors since 2013. There is only one entry on the talk page, from 2018.
 * Two images are used: one to show the appearance of the salamander, the other to show its size. Both are good quality and well-captioned.
 * Improvements to be made:
 * More information needs to be added. Each category can be divided into more descriptive subcategories.
 * Sources
 * https://www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa/wildlife_and_habitat/coastal_giant_salamander.html
 * http://www.sccp.ca/species-habitat/coastal-pacific-giant-salamander
 * https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-policy-legislation/accounts-measures-for-managing-identified-wildlife/amphibians_coastal_giant_salamander.pdf

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Baja California chorus frog


 * Article Evaluation
 * Start-class, mid-importance
 * Content:
 * The lead section sufficiently prefaces the rest of the article.
 * The article is divided into just two subcategories: taxonomy and cultural importance. There is less information on the frog itself than on its significance to humans. The information is not very scientifically written. For example, the author begins the taxonomy section with "the naming of this frog has a very confusing history" - subjective and unhelpful to the article.
 * Not all of the sources are very reliable. One is californiaherps.com, which is not a reputable academic publication.
 * The talk page hasn't been used, but a few edits have been made by various editors since 2014.
 * Improvements to be made:
 * This article needs scientific information on this species of frog rather than taxonomy and cultural importance. I would probably add subsections such as description, behavior, range, etc.
 * The sources used need to be more reputable and academic. The article could also be much more concisely written.


 * Sources
 * https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/Amphibia/Anura/Hylidae/Acridinae/Pseudacris/Pseudacris-cadaverina
 * https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/nature/californiatreefrog.htm