User:Seashell5300/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

Deinococcus radiodurans

Article Evaluation


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the article seems closely relevant to the topic, but has an overall grading of "B" as there are spelling/grammar errors that should be adjusted before receiving a higher grade.
 * Mid-Level Importance
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * It seems to be written neutrally as facts and information is listed for the extremophilic bacterium according to its category.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Each claim contains a citation to back up where the information was originally attained.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * A good majority of the citations appear reliable as they contain a ".gov" or ".edu" webpage.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * This article on Deinococcus radiodurans does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as information about them is true and easily found using the resources listed below.

Sources


 * 1) http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_02/deinococcus.shtml
 * 2) https://www.usuhs.edu/pat/deinococcus/FrontPage_DR_Web_work/Pages/Pages%20from%2010%20years%20ago%20Conan%20article%20for%20web_1.pdf
 * 3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99018/

Option #2
Article title

Tardigrade

Article Evaluation


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * High-Importance with a C-Class grade
 * Due to its grade, important information is missing or unneeded as the site requires "substantial cleanup" in order to earn a better grade. The naming, description, and habitat of Water Bears is small, but remains relevant to the topic nonetheless.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * It gives off a neutral point of view as facts and figures of water bears are expressed throughout the article.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * While most claims contain a citation to allow the readers to retrieve the information form its home source, few do not.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * While the first site listed in the resources page is a ".gov", the two sites following them are a ".com", proving the information found to be less credible in comparison.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * The article does cover one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as the information found is now seen as less reliable due to its less significant credibility. If the information found was retrieved from a website more reliable, and in higher quantities, readers could gain a better understanding of this topic.

Sources


 * 1) https://www.americanscientist.org/article/tardigrades
 * 2) https://www.wired.com/2014/03/absurd-creature-week-water-bear/
 * 3) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16422095-100-indestructible/?ignored=irrelevant

Option #3
Article title

Sporangium

Article Evaluation


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * High-Importance and Start-Class rating
 * While small in size, information listed in this article is relevant to the topic addressed in the beginning. The intro gives the readers a general idea of the topics to be discussed in the reading.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * It is written neutrally as information is addressed in an organized and factual manner.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Since it is listed as a Start-Class, some claims have citations while others do not. This article is a work-in-progress as it still requires a lot of work to create a well rounded article.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Few citations are reliable, most are inaccessible as proper links are not included in the resources,  while others come from an unreliable webpage.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * The article struggles to tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as a lot of information is missing or incorrect.

Sources


 * 1) https://languages.oup.com/
 * 2) http://leavingbio.net/fungi/
 * 3) https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fungi/fungilh.html

Option #4
Article title

Gram-positive bacteria

Article Evaluation


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Top-Importance and C-Class rating
 * "Substantial Cleanup" is required for improvement of this particular article as it is lacking important information required for the topic of gram-positive bacteria.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * It is written neutrally as information and data is supplied (in low quantities) throughout the article.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * While some claims contain citations to back up their credibility, some do not provide the website where the information was taken from. To receive a better grade overall, the person who inputted the information will need to go back and attach its source.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Sources provided by the writers of this article appear to be reliable as there are ".net" and ".org" sites attached, as well as textbooks covering attributes of gram-positive bacteria.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * This article is progressively attempting to minimize Wikipedia's ongoing equity gaps to create a more sound/reliable source of information.

Sources


 * 1) https://basicbiology.net/micro/microorganisms/bacteria
 * 2) https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-28-1-1
 * 3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98952/