User:Stephaniepeak/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
 * Marine microbial symbiosis


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and is written neutrally. Many claims have a citation, but it is missing some. It does not cover one of wikipedia's equity gaps. There is no content in the talk page, but the article isn't rated very highly so it could definitely be improved.


 * Sources
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-28221-1_10
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-013-2238-0
 * https://www.elsevier.com/books/microbial-symbioses/duperron/978-1-78548-220-5
 * https://www.routledge.com/Marine-Microbiology-Ecology--Applications/Munn/p/book/9780367183561

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Oculina


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and is written neutrally. All claims have citations. It does not cover one of wikipedia's equity gaps. There is no content in the talk page, but the article is rated as "start" level, so it could definitely be improved and added upon.


 * Sources
 * https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v504/p171-179/
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00697-6
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098117306925?casa_token=o2xaYZK8rusAAAAA:12P5Sdeew3wxfZePovtwPksLEi42Ke8oFXj2J_bm1tjBl1Nr5Rtr19NLXv8jsbpFNRsUC-Qi
 * https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v122/p217-225/

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Dysbiosis


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and is written neutrally; however, it is biased toward human microbiome dysbiosis. It seems that all claims have citations. It does not cover one of wikipedia's equity gaps. In the talk page, there is some discussion about bias and needing more references, but that was about a decade ago so I believe it has been fixed. The article is also rated as "start" level, so it could definitely be improved and added upon.


 * Sources
 * https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/11/1682
 * https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/spectrum.01567-22
 * https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.650610/full
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/raq.12513

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Zooxanthellae


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and is written neutrally; however, it is outdated. It seems that all claims have citations. It does not cover one of wikipedia's equity gaps. There is no content in the talk page, but the article is rated as "start" level, so it could definitely be improved and added upon.


 * Sources
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218309072 soooo important
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-92735-0_30
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141113622001519?casa_token=A4MbCWlBgKMAAAAA:85r30hACt8wtWOFOkna2phmLQrYsmstESk9ZsQVSm79y_XNPxVXG59LB1x4rKUNTce_ikvjJ

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Exaiptasia


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and is written neutrally. Most claims have citations, but it is missing a few. It does not cover one of wikipedia's equity gaps. There is no content in the talk page, but the article is rated as "start" level, so it could definitely be improved and added upon.


 * Sources
 * https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1513318112
 * https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-271
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15677
 * https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011874
 * https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00214/full
 * https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/6717
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222005905