User:Spaceotter63/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
Yes, the content is relevant, but there is not much of it. Yes, the information provided seems to be neutrally written. No, some claims are missing citations. Yes, all the citations seem to come from scholarly, unbiased sources. It may, but I'd have to do more research to find out. It is currently underrepresented based on the amount of information on the subject on the Wikipedia page.
 * Article title: Bay owl
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Sources:
 * https://www.owlrescue.co.uk/project/bay-owl/
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317306115
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317306115

Option 2
Yes, however there is very little content. Yes, the information provided seems unbiased, just stating the facts. Maybe, there is only one citation but it is not directly referenced to in the text. Yes, the one citation is from a scholarly article in a published scientific journal. I am not sure but there is little information in this article. There are also multiple scientists mentioned in this field, but their work is not described in any detail, which may signify underrepresentation.
 * Article title: Paleornithology
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

Jamie R. Wood, Vanesa L. De Pietri "Next-generation paleornithology Technological and methodological advances allow new insights into the evolutionary and ecological histories of living birds," The Auk, 132(2), 486-506, (1 April 2015)
 * Sources:
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018289900102

Option 3
Yes, all content is related to the monkey. Yes, all claims seem to be based on fact despite the lack of citations in some areas. No, some paragraphs lack even one citation. Some of them. Most of the citations come from reliable sources except for one questionable one. Maybe, I am not sure what the specific equity gaps are and how this topic would fit into them. Playback point counts and N‐mixture models suggest higher than expected abundance of the critically endangered blond titi monkey in northeastern Brazil. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.23126
 * Article title: Barbara Brown's titi
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Sources:
 * Sources:

Census of the Blond Titi Monkey Callicebus barbarabrownae (Pitheciidae) in the Semi-Deciduous Atlantic Forest of Chapada Diamantina, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1896/044.021.0203

Option 4
Yes, the content provided is relevant. Yes, the provided information is written neutrally. I don't think so, the way claims are cited is strange and confusing. Yes, the citations provided are from scholarly sources. Probably, because Africa's overall history is generally underrepresented. Colony and social structure of the Ghana mole‐rat (Cryptomys zechi, Matchie) (Rodentia: Bathyergidae), S. Yeboah, K. B. Dakwa. Journal of Zoology.
 * Article title: Ghana mole-rat
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Sources:
 * Sources:

Factors influencing the distribution of the mole rat, Cryptomys zechi (Rodentia, Bathyergidae) in Ghana, S. Yeboah, S. Akyeampong. African Journal of Ecology.

Option 5
Yes, the content is relevant, but lacking. Yes, all content is written neutrally. No, not all claims are directly cited. No, citations are lacking and the few provided are questionable. I am not sure, but it is possible considering other whale sanctuaries are better described on their Wikipedia pages. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312963
 * Article title: Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Sources:
 * Sources:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232957389_Cetaceans_in_the_Indian_Ocean_Sanctuary?enrichId=rgreq-8a015d66e0c6a4f2713b4751bd35156d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMjk1NzM4OTtBUzoxMDExMzU2NzUyOTc3OTNAMTQwMTEyNDAzMjUwNA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf