User:Msp232/Choose an Article

List of Options
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin https://www.britannica.com/science/Penicillium
 * Article title: Penicillium
 * Article Evaluation: Though neutral, the article is very technically written which is why it needs to be improved. Each claim has a corresponding citation. Though I am not an expert it needs to be made more comprehensive for non-experts. This topic does not tackle one of Wikipedia's Equity Gaps. The content is relevant to the topic.There are systematic and literature reviews and not too many primary sources. The sources are reliable.
 * Sources:
 * http://website.nbm-mnb.ca/mycologywebpages/Moulds/Penicillium.html

Option 2

 * Article title: Vaginal Flora
 * Article Evaluation: This article is not very particularly relevant. It has needed to be updated since 2015. New data and scientific consensus has changed since publishing. It is neutrally written and nearly every claim has a source. The sources list is extensive and reliable though new research has emerged and has been discussed. Many of the sources appear to be primary sources. It does not cover one of the Wikipedia equity gaps. the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Sources:
 * https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/32/4/e69/467047 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/vaginal-flora
 * https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/32/4/e69/467047 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/vaginal-flora

Option 3

 * Article title: Placental Microbiome
 * Article Evaluation: This article was last edited in 2018 and since then it has not received many daily views and has a C level completeness score. As of 2018, there has been new information that could be added to the topic. Each claim does have a citation but there are not many claims made. A gap this fills is the female population and women's health. The content is relevant to the topic. This page has reliable secondary sources. However, there is new material on the topic from independent sources as well as new expert positions. There are also currently more systematic and literature reviews related to the placental microbiome. However, there may not be sufficient and consistent research that has been conclusive on facts of the matter. The content is relevant to the topic.
 * Article Evaluation: This article was last edited in 2018 and since then it has not received many daily views and has a C level completeness score. As of 2018, there has been new information that could be added to the topic. Each claim does have a citation but there are not many claims made. A gap this fills is the female population and women's health. The content is relevant to the topic. This page has reliable secondary sources. However, there is new material on the topic from independent sources as well as new expert positions. There are also currently more systematic and literature reviews related to the placental microbiome. However, there may not be sufficient and consistent research that has been conclusive on facts of the matter. The content is relevant to the topic.


 * Sources:
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014340041630649X
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1451-5
 * https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(18)32119-7/fulltext

Option 4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49452-y http://www.altmedrev.com/archive/publications/9/2/180.pdf
 * Article title: Dysbiosis
 * Article Evaluation: The dybiosis article has many daily views but a low score that states that it needs improvement. The claims all have their corresponding citation and it is neutrally written. The topic is brief but the sources list is long. It does not fill any of Wikipedia's Equity gaps. It could link and explain in more detail the illness due to the condition. The content is relevant to the topic. The sources list is extensive and includes secondary sources and reviews. The citations are reliable.
 * Sources:

Option 5
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561393/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292074/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/fungal-pathogenesis
 * Article title: Pathogenic Fungus
 * Article Evaluation: This article could provide more links to other Wikipedia articles. It is moderately trafficked and has a C grade level. It does not fill any equity gaps but it is neutrally written. It could provide more information in the introduction, but the content is relevant to the topic. The article had far fewer sources than the others but every claim was cited appropriately. There is room for the inclusion of more secondary independent sources.
 * Sources:
 * Sources:
 * Sources: