User:Vamurph/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: Entamoeba polecki

Article Evaluation: This article is set up in a very informative and easy-to-read fashion. It is correctly sourced where needed, but it doesn't have many sources. Most of the major sections are well-written, however, more information is needed. Specifically with lifecycle and pathology (who is the definitive host, what are the symptoms of infected individuals, is it fatal, etc.), and more information on relationship with humans (if possible). Maybe more information about the genus as well and what it is similar to, for a more informative background.

Sources: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00034983.1986.11812040?needAccess=true (possible to get full access??), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156713481930245X,

Option 2

Article title: Crithidia fasciculata

Article Evaluation: This article contains only two sources and is lacking in a lot of content, such as epidemiological importance, morphology, etc. There are also no discussions on the talk page about updating and improving this article. Lastly, most of the content isn't cited, which needs to be fixed. This is an article that definitely needs a lot of work.

Sources: https://www-sciencedirect-com.libproxy.siue.edu/science/article/pii/S073497501100067X, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166685194900515(possibly get full access??)

Option 3:

Article title: Cyclotorna

Article Evaluation: This article currently only has a very short introduction with one source. It needs a lot of work to find and discuss the lifecycle, pathology, and other important information for a well-rounded explanation of this parasite. There is little discussion about this article in the talk page as well, so there isn't much interest in this topic.

Sources: https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn%3Alsid%3Abiodiversity.org.au%3Aafd.taxon%3A048c367f-82bd-4137-a7a4-51da6b26ed9c There aren't a lot of sources for this parasite which might make it difficult to add more information on this article.

Option 4

Article title: Pseudopulex

Article Evaluation: This article covers two species in an extinct genus and provides no information besides the introduction. There are very few sources cited as well, meaning this article needs a lot of work. It is very interesting and could be improved if sources describing the lifecycle and more about the discovery and evolution (in terms of maybe certain fleas coming from these ancestors). Would be interesting to compare species from different eras in time.

Sources: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212002692, https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.012/attachment/25067dfe-c1e1-4293-9a3a-53e12f76fe7a/mmc1.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213006350, https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-014-0168-1

Option 5

Article title: Diphyllobothrium

Article Evaluation: This article is very well-written and the major sections are a great foundation. However, I think there is more information that could be found about this parasite, as well as some fixing up with sources and citations. It was rated as start-class by wiki, so there is work that needs to be done still. This again is a genus page, so I guess there isn't much information on the topic, or there aren't solo pages for any of the species. Regardless, I think this

Sources: https://cmr.asm.org/content/22/1/146.short, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00222332, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3272427?casa_token=oF_UGzshOLgAAAAA:BFeps0p6b7ixXoMYR0ez1DpZ6hNVJ72N4MGSonkUv1OhX8nVbxbd_LACuR61CimRANrlt7QJyC0x0uU3ygrHIrF1448m3uqhIwQNWgjFb82OJPYnwg&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents, https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Parasitology/volume-91/issue-4/GE-3456RN.1/Diphyllobothrium-Neolithic-Parasite/10.1645/GE-3456RN.1.short

*** Currently I think options 1 and 4 are the best options for updating as they are pretty relevant and have papers about them. Therefore, effective research could be done to improve these pages.