User:MarryamZ83/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: Platanus racemosa:
 * Article Evaluation: The article holds the author's opinions at times yet also stays neutral. As I filtered through the sources, one of them was biased against Platanus racemosas, or California sycamores; the article does not truly employ this source but it stays somewhat on topic. In addition, the article did not truly cover an unrepresented topic as there seems to be other articles and quite a few sources discussing it. On the Talk page, there were two crossed out items, two of them being sources to a dictionary, one of them being a link to a map and the last was information about the Sycamores near Sierra Nevada.
 * Sources: Many of the articles claims and facts seem to sprout up from no where, with no backing and when they do have sources, they are not related to the subheading they discuss nor do they hold all the information that the article is claiming. The article additionally does not employ its sources to the full extent and at times does not utilize them at all. :
 * Sources: Many of the articles claims and facts seem to sprout up from no where, with no backing and when they do have sources, they are not related to the subheading they discuss nor do they hold all the information that the article is claiming. The article additionally does not employ its sources to the full extent and at times does not utilize them at all. :

Option 2

 * Article title: California chaparral and woodlands:
 * Article Evaluation: Although the article lacks various citations, it is relatively neutral and stays on topic. Aside from that, it ventures out and discusses how outside sources (fires and human interference) affected the California chaparral and woodlands. Each claim does not have a citation and for one of the citations, I was unable to view the full text they cited (only the portion of it they included in the setting). The Talk section includes people discussing whether the article should be merged with the Chaparral Wiki article, how it combined three separate ecoregions, and lastly of a person attempting to add the 'proper' link for citation 1. (Citation 1 previously only included a link to a brief article. :
 * Sources: One of the citation only links to a brief article yet makes claims that imply they got more information that can be seen through the link they added. Another problem was the lack of specific citations; they included the books or articles or papers in which they received their information but did not cite it properly. :

Option 3

 * Article title: Equisetum:
 * Article Evaluation: The article stays relatively neutral and definitely on topic. The author's opinions sometimes entered into their facts but was done so in a subtle manner. On the other hand, they heavily focus on the taxonomy of the Equisetum with specific locations of subgenuses and hybrids. Additionally, it focuses on the biology and etymology of the species as well while also including a fairly neutral description of the fern and its properties. It also holds a clear structure with subheadings that make it easier to find information. :
 * Sources: The citations seem to be reliable yet a few are missing. Additionally, sometimes the citations are put in the middle of the paragraph and none are included after that citation, which might imply that it is from the same source or that they did not add another citation. :

Option 4

 * Article title: Umbellularia :
 * Article Evaluation: The article describes the uses, history, and description in a neutral tone that discusses the Umbellularia (California bay) without diverging too much. However, the article discusses "Myrtlewood" money at the end that discusses coins made from the wood of laurel trees yet does not specify this nor does it discuss bay laurels. It simply talks about the impact of the "Myrtlewood coins." Its ecology section is lacking and small; not much is described about its relation to other plants and what that might indicate about the plant and the environment it grows in. Additionally, the taxonomy of the plant could be discussed with more depth. It seems that each claim has a relatively reliable citation except one of them. :
 * Sources: The sources seem to vary in type and reliability but it is clear that the authors of this article. However, the article is relatively reliable in providing a citation for each claim it makes (there seems to be a citation in every other sentence).  :

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources: