User talk:Jgleana/Choose an Article

Option 1 Article title: Outerspace Article Evaluation: The content of this article is relevant to the topic, it talks about the thermosphere, the formation, the state, the environment of outer space and more. This article is written neutrally because it states pure facts about what's in space and cool information backed up by science. After each claim, the author makes sure to put citations after it, to make sure it's not plagiarized. The articles cited in this article seem to be reliable as well because it's nicely corrected to the subject, neutral stance and correctly added citations. This article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Talk page seems to be fairly good, not too much criticism from peers. Sources: It can be seen that this article is well cited, the sources are organized and well aligned

Option 2 Article title: Atmosphere Article Evaluation The content of this article is relevant to the topic, the articles goes in depth about the structure, the pressure, the circulation and the importance of the Atmosphere. This article was written from a neutral stand point. The article seems to be cited alright, Not every claim is cited though, but the those claims that are cited seem to have accurate because it does connect well with the topic. This article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Looking at the talk page, it can be seen that the peers think that not everything in this article is 100%, the critique seems to be very popular in the talk page Sources: sources are a little messy

Option 3 Article title: Mesosphere Article Evaluation The article is relevant to the topic, it has some nice visuals of the mesosphere and facts about its temperature and dynamic features and more. This article seems to be written neutrally, it doesn't seem like there are any personal biases stated in this article. This article does have citations after every claim that is stated with sources that connect well to the topic which is very reliable. This article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Looking at the talk page, it seems that some people have spotted some inaccuracy. Sources: It can be seen that this article is well cited, the sources are organized and well aligned

Option 4 Article title: Big Bang Article Evaluation The content in this article is very much relevant to the topic, talks about the development and also has very informative models about the Big Bang theory. This article does seem to be written from a neutral stand point, the author talks about the physics behind the Big Bang theory. Each claim does indeed have a citation after it and the sources are reliable because it relates a lot to the topic. This article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Looking at the talk page of this article, the main complaint was needing more sources. It can be seen that people contributed to help with that problem. Sources: It can be seen that this article is well cited, the sources are organized and well aligned

Option 5 Article title: Age of the universe Article Evaluation The authors content is relevant to the topic, one of the visuals the natural timeline of the universe. This article is written from a neutral stand point, the claims are backed up by studies that were made of this exact topic. Each claim seems to be well cited and are reliable since some of the citations are canon studies done by scientists. This article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. looking at the talk page of this article, opening of the article had some errors on missing key pieces like 'the Big Bang theory' and some minor citations were missing. Sources: It can be seen that this article is well cited, the sources are organized and well aligned