User:Paigevinch/Choose an Article

Herpetophobia (Fear or aversion to reptiles)

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It is factual and pertains strictly to the definition of the phobia, therefore conforming to the definition of relevant (closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered).
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, even the comparison given to ophidiophobia (like the other phobias) is written with compelling evidence that suggests it is not derived from the opinion of the writer. There are provable statements, and no opinions. From this, I can conclude the article is unbiased, if we define unbiased as showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes! Each sentence has a hyperlink and a corresponding citation in works cited.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary is a reputable source, but phobias.about.com and wrongdiagnosis.com are less vetted. The dictionary appears to be a better source because it is more independent (it is not directly related to the subject) unlike the other two sources that directly talk about, as per the respective titles, phobias and wrong diagnoses. This dictionary is also a source known for fact-checking and neutrality, as it is a dictionary after all. It is also self-published, and Merriam-Webster is known to represent a general consensus in the field.
 * 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.
 * People say it just sounds like a copy-and-paste article. Why? They say it's because the sources provided are way too similar to the content of the argument; there's little paraphrasing. They also say this because there's little information regarding the topic other than a brief definition.
 * Sources
 * https://besdrongos.wordpress.com/category/biodiversity/page/2/
 * http://bspace.uob.edu.bh/xmlui/handle/123456789/3746

Koumpounophobia (Fear of buttons)

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it pertains strictly to the definition of the phobia. Therefore, this conforms to the definition of relevant (closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered).
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, the reasoning why is similar to the previous answer. It is composed of statements that we can prove or disprove. Therefore, I would say this article is written neutrally because there is no clear prejudice indicated for or against something.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * No, there is a citation missing regarding the second statement under "Koumpounophobia in popular culture." Other than that, a citation is indicated after each claim.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, with the exception of the fifth, which is just someones personal edited YouTube video. As this source is not known for fact-checking or neutrality and seems to provide a limited perspective with little universality to their claims. The other articles appear reliable, and evidence for this is similar to that stated in Option 1. Cambridge University Press for example, has a reputation for fact-checking and the information they provide in particular does not appear to attempt to persuade readers to a particular point of view. Another source is a Penn State University blog post, but it lists no citations which leaves me questioning its legitimacy. The last source I mention is just a blog post from someone who claims to have this phobia. Considering he doesn't offer anything besides anecdotal evidence, I would say this citation is not very reliable. Even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily indicative of a typical experience.
 * 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.
 * Nothing worthy of note here; small grammatical errors. The editors note that the previous page did not link to credible sources but now, as I mentioned, there is a link to a scholarly journal article (The second source I have listed below).
 * Source:
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VDihDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&dq=Koumpounophobia&ots=9q8bt0XmDl&sig=7swZZx0M0694a2AwFpTh_fmNDQY#v=onepage&q=Koumpounophobia&f=false

Gerascophobia (Fear of aging due to loss of health and ability)

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. This directly addresses the definition of the phobia.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes. This article does not provide supporting statements for a side of a disagreement. Which makes sense considering this topic doesn't offer much controversy to begin with.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes. Hyperlinks and references support claims.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * No, Vsauce (a YouTube personality, with little reputation for fact-checking and neutrality) is used amongst other unreliable sources like anecdotal blog posts. It is a bit too personal for the subject matter, considering that an ideal article would stray from identifying with one personal experience and rather aim toward a more universal one to permit objectivity.
 * 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.
 * Some users say there's a lack of symptoms listed.
 * Sources:
 * https://ijels.com/ojs/index.php/ijels/article/view/14 (There is VERY little on this phobia so this article is a bit questionable considering it is a literary analysis of a character, but it makes sure not to stray far from the provided definition of a phobia. This source is OK, but definitely not ideal. There was a lot of difficulty for me in finding a reliable source.)

Gephyrophobia (Fear of bridges)

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. This article's content is applicable to the subject matter and does not stray from the phobia's definition.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, this article does not strongly support any particular viewpoint. What is described is factual.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes. I can observe this by examining the references and hyperlinks.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * All but the last one ("Halopedia," which has no apparent track record for being neutral nor fact-checking) appear so. The others, like Merriam Webster, the New York Times, and other reputable publications with substantial attention to detail, relative impartiality and a lack of a direction relation to the subject are quite reliable.
 * 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 potential connection to acrophobia that is not mentioned.
 * Sources:
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fISYDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=Gephyrophobia&ots=WYJmFa_2Oe&sig=Ih0_t8bef16bzKKqhYuoX5LTNQk#v=onepage&q=Gephyrophobia&f=false

Myrmecophobia (Fear of ants)

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, as this article does not stray from the phobia's definition.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes, it holds no opinions nor does it employ persuasive language.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Yes. This is observed by the hyperlinks and works cited provided.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Upon close inspection, one of the articles is a think-piece blog post type article, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Phobias" which doesn't even open properly, so that's a bit questionable. The other is just an article about how a published study was done to show that people who watched Spiderman and Ant-Man walked out with lessened fears of spiders. This seems like a case study and isn't necessarily indicative of a common experience. Because of this, I wouldn't consider this citation very reliable.
 * 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.
 * Unfortunately nothing is on the talk page.
 * Sources:
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myrmecophobic