User:Strawberry.creek/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

 * San Andreas Creek:
 * Article Evaluation:The article is unrated, which means it doesn't get a lot of attention (average 3 views per day), which means that it could be good to add a lot of information to, but it may also mean there hasn't 'been much research done on the creek. However, the content of the article is relevant, and I can see areas that I can easily expand upon (provided strong sources are available). The article appears to be fairly neutral and has sufficient citation, which all appear to be reliable. Although it doesn't really cover an equity gap, I can also see an excellent opportunity to discuss the indigenous history and their importance to the ecological history.
 * Sources
 * https://www.usgs.gov/
 * https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.T43B1359L
 * https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/SFPUC%20Peninsula%20Watershed%20Historical%20Ecology%20SFEI%20081821%20lowres.pdf

Option 2

 * Spotted Sandpiper:
 * Article Evaluation:This is an "S" (starting) class article, which means there is definitely a lot of information that can be added to it. The content of the article is all relevant to the topic, and each claim has a reliable source. There appears to be no indication of bias, and there are certainly sections, like the one sentence "predators" section that have plenty of room for expansion.
 * Sources
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261795269_Population_Studies_of_the_Polyandrous_Spotted_Sandpiper
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347289800132
 * https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/121/2/duz001/5427452
 * https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/56/3-4/article-p181_1.xml?language=en

Option 3

 * Crystal Springs Reservoir:
 * Article Evaluation:This is another "S" class article, leaving sufficient room for additional details. The content is highly relevant and detailed, and the sources are all reliable and sufficient in number. The article is fairly neutral, seemed not to be biased in any way. The flora and fauna section appears to be the least detailed, so there should be room to expand on that.
 * Sources
 * https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2000final/parks.pdf
 * http://npshistory.com/publications/goga/hrs-sweeney-ridge.pdf
 * https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/SFPUC%20Peninsula%20Watershed%20Historical%20Ecology%20SFEI%20081821%20lowres.pdf