User:C windhorst/sandbox

EEB 3408W Climate Change Article notes: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

• No. I would like to see more facts on how the climate record is being assembled, they reference the idea and that it has been done, but do not cite actual research or websites that pertain to the information. I know its an introduction piece, but I would be interested to see an increase in links for those records.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

• Yes, for the most part. Each topic can be traced back and related to climate change, but a better organization could occur with the physical evidence, better between topic introductions.

Is there anything that distracted you?

• I do not like the listing Life. It is not as descriptive as it could be considering the large topic it encompasses.
• The location of the definition of the term "climate change" should be at the start of the terminology section as it is using this term before actually describing its origin.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Neutral in my opinion, but I may be biased (in non-believers opinions) on my support of climate change as a real thing. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

• I personally could not determine view points, except on the concept of those who wrote this article believe in climate change.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

• The ones that I checked did. I couldn't find any plagiarism. yet.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

• Current changes that can be tracked now, not just historic explanations. NOT ONCE did a section mention loss of biodiversity.... NOT ONCE! or even the implications this has on the human race.

Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?

• Beneficial on people potentially wanting to trash climate change, not beneficial when I would like to add a portion discussing current day measures of climate change.

Check the "talk" page of the articles - what is the Wikipedia community discussing when it comes to representing these issues? How is the article ranked on Wikipedia's quality scale?

• Not much, discussion on current events that can be related to climate change. While I understand it states at the top that to learn about current changes, go to global warming... I still think this can be confusing for some people who automatically put together climate change and global warming as one thing due to government. B rating, discussions on set up and re-direction of concepts. It was last edited on May 1st though. C windhorst (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EEB 3408W Effects of Climate changes on plant biodiversity notes Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

• Yes, even from the start it is referenced.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

• Higher level changes is relevant, however not much is said in this very small section. I am happy to see the concept that species may not be able to follow their environment they are adapted for.

Is there anything that distracted you?

• Not really, it stuck very well to the topic.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

• Most of the info comes from peer reviewed journals.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

• Not that I could tell.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

• Not from the few citations I looked at, a more in depth reading and review would need to occur.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

• page was created in 2008, could use more info thats up to date

Check the "talk" page of the articles - what is the Wikipedia community discussing when it comes to representing these issues? How is the article ranked on Wikipedia's quality scale?

• rank of C, a requested move was made in May, 2016. C windhorst (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EEB 3408W Regional effects of global warming notes Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

• no, introduction facts should be cited to promote expansion on ideas and help readers link to certain articles or published works.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

• Everything seems to be, it can all be related in a general discussion on the global changes, and is beneficial to break down the topics. Most if not all of the particular ecosystems are mentioned.

Is there anything that distracted you?

• scientific jargon that average readers would not be able to get through, like inundation (needs definition included, or a link to the definition) they use inundation alot!

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

• seemingly scientific and informative, neutral sources

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

• No, indigenous people are mentioned

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

• Couldn't find any, would have to check each individual source

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

• seemingly current, most often cited from 2012.

Check the "talk" page of the articles - what is the Wikipedia community discussing when it comes to representing these issues? How is the article ranked on Wikipedia's quality scale?

• Ranking of a C, has talk about links that no longer work due to EPA retracting climate change in the Trump and Pruitt administration.

C windhorst (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)