User:Nbrint/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 1Nutria

 * Article title
 * commercial and environmental issues
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, I think nutria are an important part of water management in California. Nutria are an invasive species and remind me of underwater rabbits in terms of damage they cause to non native habitats. They are ecosystem constructors much like rabbits and beavers are. Is it written neutrally? The article has a negative bias throughout. There is not enough information about how nutria impact their own native habitat. The article says that nutria are extinct in their native habitat due to overharvesting. Does each claim have a citation? No, each claim does not have a citation. For example, an author states that nutria can chew through man made objects like tires and it has no citation. Are the citations reliable?Does the article tackle one of wikipedias equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes. The article covers how nutria are used by other cultures around the world. It is called the poor man's meat in russia. The article also talked about using nutria meat for dog food and dog treats in the United States. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There is a lot of discussion in the article. One editor wanted to improve the term invasive species. They suggested mitigation and a new possible niche the nutria are using. They argue that adding nutria are akin to adding species robustness, I don’t agree. My idea is to edit the content under heading: Commercial and environmental issues. The bottom of the article only has one parasite that nutria can host. There are many pathogens that are zoonotic that nutria carry. I find this especially interesting due to their native habitat in South America.
 * Sources
 * https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/SA_Nutria/CT_Conflicts#:~:text=Nutria%20are%20vectors%20for%20wildlife,people%2C%20pets%2C%20and%20livestock.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210736/
 * https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/SA_Nutria/CT_Conflicts#:~:text=Nutria%20are%20vectors%20for%20wildlife,people%2C%20pets%2C%20and%20livestock.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210736/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210736/

Option 2

 * Article title Surface runoff
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. I think that surface runoff is a big part of water management with the threat of future climate change. Surface runoff needs better management through ecology and environmental restoration. Is it written neutrally? The article is written with a negative bias. The authors embellish how surface runoff is one of the major ways that eutrophication happens. The negative bias is throughout the article and intensifies at the end. Does each claim have a citation? Each claim does not have a citation. There is much room for improvement under the environmental impacts section and economic issues sections of the article . Are the citations reliable? No. Some links have been removed and other links cite other wikipedia pages and books. I thought this was strange. Only two links resulted in reliable information. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? The misrepresented subject in this article is the habitats and ecosystems that are impacted by surface runoff. The focus is on the environment, not cities or communities. The article doesn't say much about poor communities having to deal with increased surface runoff and flooding but I can infer, those communities probably deal with it regularly. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There are a lot of edits and deletions for previous content in the talk section. I would edit the economic impacts of surface runoff and future outlook with sea level rise. I would look for a map to compare sea level rise in the last 100 years and a surface runoff map for the last 100 years if there is one
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. I think that surface runoff is a big part of water management with the threat of future climate change. Surface runoff needs better management through ecology and environmental restoration. Is it written neutrally? The article is written with a negative bias. The authors embellish how surface runoff is one of the major ways that eutrophication happens. The negative bias is throughout the article and intensifies at the end. Does each claim have a citation? Each claim does not have a citation. There is much room for improvement under the environmental impacts section and economic issues sections of the article . Are the citations reliable? No. Some links have been removed and other links cite other wikipedia pages and books. I thought this was strange. Only two links resulted in reliable information. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? The misrepresented subject in this article is the habitats and ecosystems that are impacted by surface runoff. The focus is on the environment, not cities or communities. The article doesn't say much about poor communities having to deal with increased surface runoff and flooding but I can infer, those communities probably deal with it regularly. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There are a lot of edits and deletions for previous content in the talk section. I would edit the economic impacts of surface runoff and future outlook with sea level rise. I would look for a map to compare sea level rise in the last 100 years and a surface runoff map for the last 100 years if there is one


 * Sources
 * https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact-development
 * https://countycounsel.saccounty.gov/Documents/Title2.pdf
 * https://countycounsel.saccounty.gov/Documents/Title2.pdf

Option 3

 * Article titleFoothill yellow-legged frog
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes I believe that the foothills yellow legged frog is important to water management because it is listed as a federally protected species and must be considered in water management. The content is relevant to the topic and is well written with a lot of graphics. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article is written neutrally throughout. The article seems short compared to the other articles I have read through. The yellow legged frog article is mainly about the ecology of the frogs. Does each claim have a citation? Yes there are many claims throughout the article that have citations. It is just a short article with a lot of room to add too. Are the citations reliable? No. The article references back to wikipedia and a main study that was referenced about the frogs ability to secret an antifungal property from their skin didn’t exist any longer. I wanted to see the paper on that. Three out of five links were functioning properly and looked like legitimate sources. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? No. There is no information on misrepresented groups. The only one misrepresented is the frog itself. They have unique breeding requirements and humans disrupt the habitat by building dams and altering stream flows. There is no economic information in this article. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There was only one edit on the article's talk page. I was surprised to see that. I would post some references to habitat restoration and a dispersal map that is updated.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes I believe that the foothills yellow legged frog is important to water management because it is listed as a federally protected species and must be considered in water management. The content is relevant to the topic and is well written with a lot of graphics. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article is written neutrally throughout. The article seems short compared to the other articles I have read through. The yellow legged frog article is mainly about the ecology of the frogs. Does each claim have a citation? Yes there are many claims throughout the article that have citations. It is just a short article with a lot of room to add too. Are the citations reliable? No. The article references back to wikipedia and a main study that was referenced about the frogs ability to secret an antifungal property from their skin didn’t exist any longer. I wanted to see the paper on that. Three out of five links were functioning properly and looked like legitimate sources. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? No. There is no information on misrepresented groups. The only one misrepresented is the frog itself. They have unique breeding requirements and humans disrupt the habitat by building dams and altering stream flows. There is no economic information in this article. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There was only one edit on the article's talk page. I was surprised to see that. I would post some references to habitat restoration and a dispersal map that is updated.


 * Sources
 * https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/Amphibians-Reptiles/mt_yellow_legged_frog/
 * https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/public_advisories/SierraAmphibian_Proposals/docs/prulepCH3SA_ALL_080113Small.pdf
 * https://wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/6/Amphibians/Mountain-Yellow-legged-Frog
 * https://wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/6/Amphibians/Mountain-Yellow-legged-Frog
 * https://wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/6/Amphibians/Mountain-Yellow-legged-Frog

Option 4

 * Article titleInvasive species
 * Article Evaluation
 * 4.) Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the article's content is an in depth look at different invasive species. There are many different sections in the article on different aspects of an invasive species, the content looks disorganized and scattered. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article looks written with neutrality. There are a bunch of different views on invasive species, the good and the bad aspects of an ecosystem. Does each claim have a citation? There is a good amount of citations for the claims made, not all claims have articles cited however. Are the citations reliable? Not all the citations are reliable that I looked through. Some claims were cited with an opinion article. I found two opinion article citations out of five, the others were papers that appeared in peer reviewed journals. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Very little is mentioned about environmental justice in the article. Underrepresented groups are not well represented in the article. Only one line was listed as content under economic impacts of invasive species. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. I read in the article the term “invasive native” and was confused by the term. Someone in the talk section of the article also mentioned the word as improper. Another editor mentions that the content has been added to, too much over the years, that this information or content is disorganized. I felt that my editing skills are getting better because I noted some issues reading the article that others did too. II would not list beavers as invasive in the article also
 * 4.) Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the article's content is an in depth look at different invasive species. There are many different sections in the article on different aspects of an invasive species, the content looks disorganized and scattered. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article looks written with neutrality. There are a bunch of different views on invasive species, the good and the bad aspects of an ecosystem. Does each claim have a citation? There is a good amount of citations for the claims made, not all claims have articles cited however. Are the citations reliable? Not all the citations are reliable that I looked through. Some claims were cited with an opinion article. I found two opinion article citations out of five, the others were papers that appeared in peer reviewed journals. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Very little is mentioned about environmental justice in the article. Underrepresented groups are not well represented in the article. Only one line was listed as content under economic impacts of invasive species. Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. I read in the article the term “invasive native” and was confused by the term. Someone in the talk section of the article also mentioned the word as improper. Another editor mentions that the content has been added to, too much over the years, that this information or content is disorganized. I felt that my editing skills are getting better because I noted some issues reading the article that others did too. II would not list beavers as invasive in the article also


 * Sources
 * http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28764
 * https://ucanr.edu/sites/CalAIS/
 * https://ucanr.edu/sites/CalAIS/

Option 5

 * Article title Water treatment
 * Article Evaluation
 * 5.) water treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_treatment Is the article's content relevant to the topic? There are duplicate sections on biological treatment. Content is disorganized and scattered. There is information in the article like desalination that should be included in its own wiki page. Too many cross referencing on topics. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article is neutral throughout. Does each claim have a citation? No, there are many claims that seem to not have a citation. Paragraphs with several statements will have no citation while a sentence at the end of the paragraph will. Are the citations reliable? All of the citations that I clicked on came from the same journal or online database which was strange. Since all citations thus far are from the same source, I would question the reliability of the data in the content. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, the article admits that poor countries and impoverished communities have less access to clean drinking water. It also states that in the future water related stressors will rise, risking clean drinking water to 1.8 billion people Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There is much controversy on the articles talk page about half truths in the contents and the over use of links. Someone suggested that it needs editing. I would suggest including water treatment facility pathogen monitoring. The editors would probably disagree with my edit because they are requesting to remove links to waterborne pathogens. I would include those in my section if I were to edit one in.
 * 5.) water treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_treatment Is the article's content relevant to the topic? There are duplicate sections on biological treatment. Content is disorganized and scattered. There is information in the article like desalination that should be included in its own wiki page. Too many cross referencing on topics. Is it written neutrally? Yes the article is neutral throughout. Does each claim have a citation? No, there are many claims that seem to not have a citation. Paragraphs with several statements will have no citation while a sentence at the end of the paragraph will. Are the citations reliable? All of the citations that I clicked on came from the same journal or online database which was strange. Since all citations thus far are from the same source, I would question the reliability of the data in the content. Does the article tackle one of wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? Yes, the article admits that poor countries and impoverished communities have less access to clean drinking water. It also states that in the future water related stressors will rise, risking clean drinking water to 1.8 billion people Check out the article’s talk page to see what other wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article’s talk page, too. There is much controversy on the articles talk page about half truths in the contents and the over use of links. Someone suggested that it needs editing. I would suggest including water treatment facility pathogen monitoring. The editors would probably disagree with my edit because they are requesting to remove links to waterborne pathogens. I would include those in my section if I were to edit one in.


 * Sources
 * https://waterresources.saccounty.net/scwa/Pages/Water-Testing.aspx
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126130/