User:AmarraD./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.

Article title- Ascension Missionary Baptist Church
Article Evaluation- There is no article available. I want to make one.
Sources- I will use the churches official records, membership logs, and ministry logs to gather my information. To gather basic information such as dates of event and events in general I will use the church's website. (which I understand is frowned upon, however I think that so long as the information I use is neutral than it should be fine. Especially considering the shortage of information and sources, despite all that they do in the community.)

Article title- Marlowe's
Article Evaluation- The article is lacking in every way, it has nothing. There is no introduction, there is nothing past the location. Nothing about the fact that it was on Diners Drive Ins and Dives, nothing about the owner, or the location's origins. This might as well be a blank slate, with a picture and a location there is so much to add and fix cosmetically as well. Even though there is only the smallest bit of information the article looks like a hot mess. The boxes and the photo itself are unnecessarily big. It looks like it was sloppily placed together. This article has only been touched by one person so there is no discourse going on in the talk section. At the very least because there is barely any information, everything that is in the article is neutral. The information in the article all pertains to the restaurant except for the section about the rights to use the article itself.
Sources- The only thing it says in sources is "Personal Work", there are no hyperlinks to other articles, there are no real sources for the article or links to any other articles on Wikipedia.

Article title- Children's museum of Memphis
Article Evaluation- The tone of the article is neutral in its short and to the point introduction and brief history. The timeline seems fine as well. The article as a whole is a bit bare bones. From what I can see there is no conversation within the talk section, which isn't inherently a bad thing considering the state of the article. Is seems to be unfinished. Not just in terms of verification, it also seems to be lacking in "meat". The article could very easily mention in specifics some of the 20 exhibits located in the museum. Or give a more detailed description of what is inside. The photo gallery is a wonderful addition, and would be a great thing to base the additional descriptions of the building off of. The article's information is based strictly on the museum, it doesn't veer of topic. It does use the locations's website which isn't a good source by Wikipedia's standards.
Sources- The article itself says that it needs some work. It is lacking in links and sources, a lot of information was lacking an article to prove it/ back it up. The resources links that are present at the bottom do work.