User:Maxwynn/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
 * Household Energy Security
 * Article Evaluation
 * Local efforts seems like unneeded information
 * The two locations being the US and India does not seem to flow well
 * United States section consists of a long quote
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic but as listed above there seems to be issues with the flow of the topics such as the only regions being US and India. The article seems to be written in a neutral tone but I would like to incorporate more emphasis on low income communities or communities of color, not sure if that would make it more biased though. Each claim and statement made seems majority paired with a citation. The article itself does not have much activity as the talk page is empty.
 * Sources
 * Sacrifice Along the Energy Continuum: A Call for Energy Justice (class reading)
 * Sources
 * Sacrifice Along the Energy Continuum: A Call for Energy Justice (class reading)
 * Sacrifice Along the Energy Continuum: A Call for Energy Justice (class reading)

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Renewable Energy:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead section is too long and can lose engagement
 * The length of the whole article seems relatively long as well
 * Sub-articles such as biofuel, bioenergy, etc. have links to other full articles, if cut down could help with length of article
 * The article is actually very good but has not received "good" yet, the information is relevant and presented neutrally. The article is full of relevant and working citations and is paired to each claim in the article. The main arguments being discussed in the talk page is the article's length. The article is one of the longest I have seen on wikipedia which lowers engagement and you can easily be lost.
 * Sources:
 * Sources:
 * Sources:

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Energy Intensity
 * Article Evaluation
 * The first graph shown was not connected to the right source
 * source [3] does not work and is connected to the third graph
 * Second graph does not have a source
 * Graphs are close to being 10 years old and some are older
 * The information is relevant but a little bit outdated as the graphs surpass 10+ years old. The information seems to be complete and all there but the readability could be improved. A big improvement for the article would be the citation work, as listed above many graphs have outdated citations or they are not accurate citations. The talk page is full of critiques on the sources of the article
 * Sources:
 * The information is relevant but a little bit outdated as the graphs surpass 10+ years old. The information seems to be complete and all there but the readability could be improved. A big improvement for the article would be the citation work, as listed above many graphs have outdated citations or they are not accurate citations. The talk page is full of critiques on the sources of the article
 * Sources:
 * Sources:

Option 4

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources:

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Sources: