User:Pannellia/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

 * "Children's Crusade"
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * From what I have seen, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I believe that this article is written neutrally. What I do enjoy about this article is that it includes a Historiography section and a Revisionism section.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not every claim has a citation. For example, the entirety of the introduction to the article is missing all citations. Out of the five articles I chose for this exercise, this article seems to be the most ambiguous.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I do not believe that all the citations in the article are reliable. In the bibliography page, the author uses phrases such as "... a (supposedly) contemporary source." There are good references listed in the author's bibliography, but some of them are questionable. For example, the author cites a Medieval Podcast as a source of information.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I do not believe that the article tackles's one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Potential Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1835076

Option 2

 * "Battle on the Ice"
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * From what I have seen, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I believe that this article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not every claim has a citation. For example, the entirety of the introduction to the article is missing all citations.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Many of the article's citations come from peer reviewed, academic sources. However, the author included some "popular history" books aimed towards non-historians as evidence for their claims (like the Dan Jones situation with the White Ship). Some of the sources are written entirely in Russian.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I do not believe that the article tackles's one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Potential Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/24664445

Option 3

 * "Battle of the Kalka River"
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * From what I have seen, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I believe that this article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not every claim has a citation. For example, the entirety of the introduction to the article is missing all citations (which is impressive, because the introduction to the article is very long). Some of the sources are written entirely in Russian.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I found all of the citations to be reliable sources in this article. In fact, I think it does the best job out of all of the articles I've chosen for this exercise. Even though the introductory paragraph is missing its citations, the rest of the article seems very thorough.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I do not believe that the article tackles's one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Potential Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/48578515

Option 4

 * "Great Famine of 1315-1317"
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * From what I have seen, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I believe that this article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not every claim has a citation. For example, most of the information in the introductory paragraph is missing a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * From what I have seen, most of the citations in their author's notes are reliable, academic and peer reviewed sources. I found two "popular history" books aimed towards non-historians as evidence for their claims in the Notes section of the article.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I do not believe that the article tackles's one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Potential Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/650378

Option 5

 * "Strasbourg Massacre"
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * From what I have seen, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I believe that this article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Not every claim has a citation. The entirety of the article is missing almost all citations (with the exception of one footnote which notes an alternative name for the historical event). What the author has written is interesting and seems honest, but nothing in this article has any authority.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * There are virtually no references in this article, so I would say that nothing in this article is reliable!
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * This article does cover one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, which is the coverage of a historically misrepresented population.
 * Potential Sources
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/25096679