User:BlueElephant9/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: Nursing

Article Evaluation:

Starting off strong, I would say that the lead is concise and too the point but is not overly full of information. While reading the lead section, it gave slight background, slight overview, and starts to dive into what they do in a day to day basis. There is no information in the lead that is not in the sections below that I found. The biggest thing for the content it starts out with past styles of nursing and then slowly leads into the current world of nursing and how it has progressed. This shows that the information here is relatively up to date with current times. There is no content missing or content that should not be in the article. I would say that this article addresses the underrepresented populations because it shares information on nursing in different parts of the world. Parts of the world that are in a way different spot technology wise than where we are now. There is no bias that shows on the first scan of the article. This article appears to be all fact based because it is not a controversial topic and it is just trying to share information on the nursing world. The article has a million sources along with many links that lead into many different aspects of nursing. This leads me to believe that this article is just scratching the surface of what nursing is and what it includes. This also gives me an inference that this basic article is not biased and has fairly reliable sources. The article flows nice and is easy to follow along. The information starts out given in chronological order then flows into profession, diversity, injuries, health related incidents, and the science behind nursing. All the images adhere to Wikipedia standards but don't show important aspects of nursing. In my opinion they are useless in this article but they are captioned correctly. There is not a ton of important information on the talk page, just a few minor changes. I think the main strengths are the flow of the article and the broad information. The information was not crammed. I would not call this article underdeveloped but it isn't anything special and it is certainly not overdeveloped. I do think there could be more added.

Sources

The sources look reliable.

Option 2

Article title: Circadian Rhythm

Article Evaluation

The article starts out with a very brief introduction which would leave the lead to be concise and to the point. This content is relevant to the title and adds to the point that the author puts across in the lead section. The lead section does not give off any information that is not in the article. The article flows nice and again goes partially chronologically. This article starts up with the history of the circadian process and origin, criteria, importance, and the effects on different animals or plants along with humans. There appears to be little to none bias as the first read of the article appears to be neutral. There is a plentiful of citations and all claims appear to be cited correctly, each factual part of the article has a listed point of origin. Some sources include Harvard, NTSB, and many different scientific journals along with scientific articles. This article mostly talks about circadian rhythm in plants, animals, and humans as a general topic so any bias is hard to come by. The talk page brings out lots of discussion. Important things I saw were questions about how scientific naming could be considered abusive and how this article is only written for scientists to read and not for the general public. This could be a gap between the science field and non science field.

Sources

The sources look to be reliable for the most part. There was something in the talk page about a source, but I didn't quite understand the meaning behind it.

Option 3

Article title: Neuroscience

Article Evaluation

The lead section is very short and not a ton of information but gets the point across of what is to follow in the article. The content is relevant to the topic and dives into what the topic really is. I think it does a really good job of this. The article is written neutrally with no bias that I picked up on. The first section after the lead talks about the history and bring up historic people that led to neuroscience discoveries. This adds to the information that follows by giving the reader where this topic came from and how much it has changed from then to now. One thing I did notice was that the information could be slightly outdated and there could be more added to the article. Many claims appears to have a citation, it is tough to check every single one since this is a science based topic meaning that the entire article should be fact based. The sources are again mostly scientific journals and articles along with a few research papers, dictionaries, and university written articles. The university articles could potentially have bias within that was then transferred onto this article, but it would be hard to pick up on. The talk page has only a few changes but they appear to be big ones. One talks about the definition of neuroscience and talks about certain branch of it. The other talks about how some statements are referenced down below with the sources but are not referenced in the text itself.

Sources

The sources look reliable. They are from scholarly sources that include universities, dictionaries, and scientific journals.

Option 4

Article title

Article Evaluation

Sources

Option 5

Article title

Article Evaluation

Sources