User:Tamara Omar/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

 * Chromite
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead defines the topic and provides a concise overview. The lead doesn't include a thorough description of the articles main sections, it can use some fixing. Most of the information in the lead is present in the article but not all. The lead is concise and to the point. The article's content is relevant to the topic however, some of the content is not up to date. There is content that is missing, more information would be helpful in certain areas. The article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. This article is written from a neutral point of view, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. Some viewpoints are underrepresented and might need more insight on them, same goes with the overrepresented views, there are some things that are irrelevant. This article does not include any minority or fringe points. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another since this article is mainly stating information and facts and not talking about opinions and choosing sides. Not all the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source information, some of the ones that are backed up have sources that are thorough and reflect available literature on the topic. There are a lot of outdated sources, the majority are not current sources. Most of the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but there are better sources are available. Most of the links work. The article is written well and is concise but not in all areas, more elaboration and detail is needed in certain areas. There aren't any obvious grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points, but more breaking down can be done and more information can be added in certain areas. The article includes images that enhance understanding the topic, most images are well captioned and some can use more information. On the talk page, the important conversations are asking about why this product is used and why is it important. People are saying that this important information is missing. Some other people have questions about certain references and others just have questions about the product. The article is rated as a C-Class, mid-importance and is part of three WikiProjects. The articles overall status is good, its strengths are that it has a good starting foundation and good information. This article can be improved by having more accurate sources that are up to date, elaborating more about why this subject and getting more information on certain parts. This article is between underdeveloped and well developed. This is the article I will choose to work on.
 * The lead defines the topic and provides a concise overview. The lead doesn't include a thorough description of the articles main sections, it can use some fixing. Most of the information in the lead is present in the article but not all. The lead is concise and to the point. The article's content is relevant to the topic however, some of the content is not up to date. There is content that is missing, more information would be helpful in certain areas. The article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. This article is written from a neutral point of view, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. Some viewpoints are underrepresented and might need more insight on them, same goes with the overrepresented views, there are some things that are irrelevant. This article does not include any minority or fringe points. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another since this article is mainly stating information and facts and not talking about opinions and choosing sides. Not all the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source information, some of the ones that are backed up have sources that are thorough and reflect available literature on the topic. There are a lot of outdated sources, the majority are not current sources. Most of the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but there are better sources are available. Most of the links work. The article is written well and is concise but not in all areas, more elaboration and detail is needed in certain areas. There aren't any obvious grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points, but more breaking down can be done and more information can be added in certain areas. The article includes images that enhance understanding the topic, most images are well captioned and some can use more information. On the talk page, the important conversations are asking about why this product is used and why is it important. People are saying that this important information is missing. Some other people have questions about certain references and others just have questions about the product. The article is rated as a C-Class, mid-importance and is part of three WikiProjects. The articles overall status is good, its strengths are that it has a good starting foundation and good information. This article can be improved by having more accurate sources that are up to date, elaborating more about why this subject and getting more information on certain parts. This article is between underdeveloped and well developed. This is the article I will choose to work on.

Option 2

 * Mafic
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence describing the topic, there is not a brief description of the articles major sections. This article is so small and there isn't a lead and a body, it is all just one. The article's content is relevant to the topic its just missing a lot on information. The content is mostly up to date, some content is missing. The article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. This article is written from a neutral point of view, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. There aren't any overrepresented views but I would say some views are underrepresented. This article does not include any minority or fringe points. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another since this article is mainly stating information and facts, there aren't any opinions. Not all facts in the article are backed up with reliable sources, there are only two sources and they are thorough reflecting the available literature on the topic. The sources are current. There are a lot of better sources available. The links work. The article is well written and is clear and easy to read. No major grammatical or spelling errors. The article is organized well. There is only one image enhancing the topic, more information on the caption is needed. The image adheres the copyright regulations. There are some conversations on the talk page and they include questions about clarifying some things, questions about how to pronounce certain words, and asking about the relevance of a certain table in the article. This is a stub-class article that needs a lot if improvement. It is part of two WikiProjects. The article's overall status is needs improvement. Strengths are that it has a good foundation but needs a lot more information and elaborate information at that. To improve this article a lot more information is needed, more sources, more detailed images explaining things that are being talked about.
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence describing the topic, there is not a brief description of the articles major sections. This article is so small and there isn't a lead and a body, it is all just one. The article's content is relevant to the topic its just missing a lot on information. The content is mostly up to date, some content is missing. The article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. This article is written from a neutral point of view, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. There aren't any overrepresented views but I would say some views are underrepresented. This article does not include any minority or fringe points. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another since this article is mainly stating information and facts, there aren't any opinions. Not all facts in the article are backed up with reliable sources, there are only two sources and they are thorough reflecting the available literature on the topic. The sources are current. There are a lot of better sources available. The links work. The article is well written and is clear and easy to read. No major grammatical or spelling errors. The article is organized well. There is only one image enhancing the topic, more information on the caption is needed. The image adheres the copyright regulations. There are some conversations on the talk page and they include questions about clarifying some things, questions about how to pronounce certain words, and asking about the relevance of a certain table in the article. This is a stub-class article that needs a lot if improvement. It is part of two WikiProjects. The article's overall status is needs improvement. Strengths are that it has a good foundation but needs a lot more information and elaborate information at that. To improve this article a lot more information is needed, more sources, more detailed images explaining things that are being talked about.

Option 3

 * Tholeiitic magma series
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. The lead's description is missing certain sections that are included in the article. Some of the information in the lead is not present in the article. The lead is concise and not overly detailed. The article's content is relevant to the topic, not all the content is up to date. There is a lot of content that is missing. This article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. It is written from a neutral point of view, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. The article is from a neutral point of view, there aren't any biased claims. Some points are underrepresented and may need more elaboration. The article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Not all the facts are backed up by reliable sources. Sources are thorough. Not all sources are current, most of them are out-dated. There are better and more reliable sources available. Most of the links work. The article is well written, clear, and has no major grammatical and spelling errors. The article is concise and is broken down into sections but not enough and can be organized better. The article includes images that are well-captioned and adhere regulations. The talk page includes conversations about renaming the page and adding more information about specific things in certain areas. The article is part of two WikiProjects and is rated as a start-class article of mid-importance. The article's overall status is average, its strengths are that it has a good foundation and a decent amount of information to be built on. It can be improved by having more precise information, more sources that are of date, and a better overall flow. This article has a completeness of underdeveloped.



Option 4

 * Iron–nickel alloy
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead includes a well written introductory sentence that describes the topic clearly, it includes a concise and somewhat brief description of the article's major sections but there is information that is missing. The article's content is relevant to the topic but is not up to date. There is a majority of content that is missing. This article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps, it is written from a neutral point of view, there is not any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. The article is from a neutral point of view, there aren't any biased claims. Viewpoints are more underrepresented rather than overrepresented, so that could use some help. This article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Not all facts are backed up, the sources are thorough. The sources are not current and very outdated, better sources are out there. Most of the links work. The article is well written with no major spelling or grammatical errors. It is well organized. There is only one image and it does not really enhance the topic that much, it is captioned and goes by the rules. There are some conversations on the talk page including how to pronounce certain things, renaming the article, and a correction to a sentence that was written. The article is a part of two WikiProjects and is rated as a start-class or low importance. The article's overall status is average, its strengths are that it has a good base. It can be improved by more elaborate information, better pictures describing things that are discussed, and more to date sources. The completeness of this article would be underdeveloped.
 * The lead includes a well written introductory sentence that describes the topic clearly, it includes a concise and somewhat brief description of the article's major sections but there is information that is missing. The article's content is relevant to the topic but is not up to date. There is a majority of content that is missing. This article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps, it is written from a neutral point of view, there is not any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. The article is from a neutral point of view, there aren't any biased claims. Viewpoints are more underrepresented rather than overrepresented, so that could use some help. This article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Not all facts are backed up, the sources are thorough. The sources are not current and very outdated, better sources are out there. Most of the links work. The article is well written with no major spelling or grammatical errors. It is well organized. There is only one image and it does not really enhance the topic that much, it is captioned and goes by the rules. There are some conversations on the talk page including how to pronounce certain things, renaming the article, and a correction to a sentence that was written. The article is a part of two WikiProjects and is rated as a start-class or low importance. The article's overall status is average, its strengths are that it has a good base. It can be improved by more elaborate information, better pictures describing things that are discussed, and more to date sources. The completeness of this article would be underdeveloped.

Option 5

 * Calc-alkaline magma series
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead includes a good introductory sentence describing the topic clearly and has a good description of the article's major sections. The lead includes topics that are not further discussed in the article. The lead is too overly detailed. The article's topic is relevant to the content, the content not that up to date and could use some fixing. There is missing content. The article doesn't deal with wikipedias equity gaps, it is written from a neutral point of view, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. The article is from a neutral point of view, there aren't any biased claims. The article does not persuade the reader in any way. Nothing in the text is backed up by any sources, the sources are only displayed on the bottom. The sources are mostly out-dated, more and even better sources are out there. Most of the links work. The article is well written, well organizes, and is clear with no major spelling or grammatical errors. The article only includes one image about the topic, it is well captioned. The talk page has two conversations which include the pronunciation and the need of expansion on the topic. The article is rated as a start-class article with mid importance. It is part of two WikiProjects. The article's overall status is average, it has some strengths which include a good base that can be built on. It can be improved by being more thorough with the information and expanding on the topic, adding more to dates sources, better images, and the use of in text citations. This article has a completeness of underdeveloped.
 * The lead includes a good introductory sentence describing the topic clearly and has a good description of the article's major sections. The lead includes topics that are not further discussed in the article. The lead is too overly detailed. The article's topic is relevant to the content, the content not that up to date and could use some fixing. There is missing content. The article doesn't deal with wikipedias equity gaps, it is written from a neutral point of view, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward any particular position. The article is from a neutral point of view, there aren't any biased claims. The article does not persuade the reader in any way. Nothing in the text is backed up by any sources, the sources are only displayed on the bottom. The sources are mostly out-dated, more and even better sources are out there. Most of the links work. The article is well written, well organizes, and is clear with no major spelling or grammatical errors. The article only includes one image about the topic, it is well captioned. The talk page has two conversations which include the pronunciation and the need of expansion on the topic. The article is rated as a start-class article with mid importance. It is part of two WikiProjects. The article's overall status is average, it has some strengths which include a good base that can be built on. It can be improved by being more thorough with the information and expanding on the topic, adding more to dates sources, better images, and the use of in text citations. This article has a completeness of underdeveloped.