Talk:Paleoceanography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jnclark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article

 * The last paragraph under the header, "Acidity, pH, and Alkalinity" does not mention alkalinity at all in the paragraph, nor does it give a reference to another wikipedia page with the definition of acidity nor alkalinity. Also, pH is the measurement of acidity, so classifying them as two different things can give a misunderstanding to the article and cause confusion to the reader. The name of this header should be changed to something else. Also, the first paragraph of this article does not give any references at all, and it is the definition of paleoceanography. This needs a citation. Hayes.966 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

 * Hi! Can anyone tell me why the use of (Lear et al. [2002]), is not in the reference list? There is also the banner on the top of the page listing that there are issues with the paper. Upon reading the article, it seem to be neutral article with no excess information. --Racer.12osu (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Oddly enough, an article was cited that did not mention Lear et al. I have added citations of Lear et al. and an article that discusses it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article
This article is quite neutral and doesn't have a political or ideological stance. Sources listed in references lead to reputable websites and information from these sources was not plagiarized nor closely paraphrased in the article. No broken links were found in the reference section. Beccaswift (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Beccaswift

Article Review
The page is not leaning towards any overall stance or side for anything, appears very neutral. The numerous amounts of primary sources warning was a little apprehensive. There may need to be more sources finding the same discoveries so that its based more on general findings rather than just insider views directly involved with the topic. The links all work and they all come from reliable peer-reviewed articles and journals that don't seem biased either. I feel that maybe salinity could be discussed a little more on the page, it seemed too briefly touched on. BritStewart (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
While the sources do seem to have accurate and good information the way it is presented in the articles is a bit overwhelming. Being that the sources are primary, coming straight from scientific journals, the terms can be hard to comprehend for those who are not familiar with the topic of paleoceanography. By including the secondary or tertiary sources, information might be able to be conveyed in a way more people will be able to comprehend. Also, the second source the author uses seems to be a book that is not free on the internet, I found the only way access the information was to purchase the book. Since the information from the second source isn't under "public domain" and isn't free information for the public to access, it shouldn't be a source from which information is cited on Wikipedia. -Wilkinson.244 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article was well referenced and the modifications were up to date. The links do work and were linked to valid sources. however, there were some distractions for instance at the beginning the editor used "so called" when referring to proxy which made it sound as if proxies weren't credible or if the proxy that was used wasn't credible. Also the article was wordy, some of the words could have been left out of the article for example "however" could have been left out of the second paragraph and the sentence should have just ended with a period.KinahGlo (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article seems extremely neutral and only shares facts and information in a non biased manner. The information that is being presented to the reader is only talking about things that pertain to the ocean (paleoceanography) and does not go off on tangents, which shows it's an informative article. I personally don't feel that there are any points or topics that are overrepresented. I believe this article is straight to the point and the references aren't too lengthy. I think that there could be some more information added to the Salinity section, since it seemed quite short compared to the other sections in the article. SS.12 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The sources in this article are up to date but there are sections that can be expanded upon, the section on Salinity as a proxy for example isn't discussed very much compared to other proxies. The article also relies heavily on primary sources and could use more secondary sources backing it up per Wikipedia guidelines. Sea eh ell (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article included many credible sources, that all work, from scientific journals to back up all of the information presented in it. The page is very neutral and does not have any bias towards anything. I was very distracted with the wording of many sentences and grammar mistakes including unnecessary beginnings to sentences. For example at the end of the Sea-surface temperature portion of the article ends with a short summary of the previous paragraph in one short sentence. This summary could have easily been incorporated into the previous sentences and eliminated the unnecessary "As so," from the article paragraph. The word "to" was also misspelled in the Bottom-water temperature paragraph. The wording in this article is extremely advanced which makes it hard to follow and understand the points of the article. The topic of salinity was barely touched upon in the article as well. One question about the topic is with increasing technology are there other ways to retrieve paleoceanographic data through new proxies? Another question is are there other topics of paleoceanography that exist out there that can be added to this article? Kevinoravecz (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

 * From my experience and from what I have learned through the Wikipedia guideline training the material seemed to fit, It had shown specific ways in which data is collected, narrowing to but not limiting it to long chain organic molecules (alkenones), stable and radioactive isotopes, and many other elements. Each siting had a reference point to understand from whom and where that data came from.

The article is not locked and can be edited by new time wikipedians. Nothing stood out to me as being plagiarized and seemed to be coming from a reliable source like an academic journal. From the Article paleoceanography, it seems that in my opinion that it is neutral, not bias in anyway. All topics within the wiki page were Paleoceanography focused and explaining the science and history correlated in the ocean, but I feel that each topic may include more information especially for those who do not understand the material fully. Salinity, acidity, and bottom water temperatures may be discussed a little more. I feel that more can be added especially more research on the topic. Paleoceanography, from what I saw all the information was reliable and dated, but more info could be added onto the topic in certain regions of the ocean or have options to click on Atlantic vs pacific paleoceanography, because under some of these large topics they tend to go off into subtopics. More visual aspects should be added in my opinion, for instance charts and diagrams to make it easier for visual learners. User:Adamksza anders.80 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article contains many references from very reliable peer reviewed scientific journals and articles, but is lacking a variety of secondary sources. Also, the links to the sources work well. In regards to the neutrality of the article, this article doesn't make outlandish claims and simply relies on more factual information from reliable sources. The article contains an interesting figure on the timeline of life on Earth, but the article could use a figure/chart noting how far back in time the various proxies mentioned in the article can be reliably used for scientific estimates and research.34ZTQw8 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Review
I was very surpised to see how short this page on Paleooceanography is considering it is such a large topic and encompasses so much. The references cited were mostly great and I was able to find a lot of them easily. They are peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals. I feel that the article should be expanded and could possibly use some text books as references to help the average person understand these terms being used.

Blenz1126 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Everything within the article is quite relevant to the topic such as ocean circulation and salinity. Also, the sources that were checked were of neutral sources. Adams.1714 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)adams.1714

Article Review
All of the sources in this topic come from academic journals. Some of them are directly related to the topic, while others are just about pale climates in genera. They don't include blog posts, social media, official websites, or promotional material which is preferred. The links to them were easy to find. Because the sea-surface temperature section is much longer than the other sections, it can be concluded that the author put more of an effort in finding information about SST, and therefore was able to put in more of that information into the article. Salinity only has one source dedicated to it, so the effort to find more information pertaining to how salinity is a paleoclimate proxy would be beneficial and make the article less biased. Some negatives about this article is that there is only one broad topic with sub topics underneath it. There is also only one graphic. Visual learners would better understand this topic if it included maps identifying salinity of oceans in different parts of the world, as well as an ocean acidification graph and an SST map. Mhwayne14 (talk) 15:19, 01 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Review
The first thing that comes to mind when looking at this article is the banner that says it “relies too much on references to primary sources. I understand the need to diversify one’s sources, but I think that that isn’t really a problem because primary sources are generally more specific and reliable. The author does a good job at citing his sources, and they seemed properly paraphrased. The only problem is that the article is written fact after fact, and it doesn’t clarify nor really describe the data that it is laying out for the reader. On a positive note, there is nothing distracting or biased about this article or the sources it came from. The links in the sources do work, and take the reader directly there. I did not find any plagiarism in this article. This page is not locked which means anyone could edit it which could be abused, but I don’t think that this topic is “hot” enough for anyone to go in and falsify info or change it to meet their views. All the information seems up to date. As I mentioned earlier, I would add more clarifying sentences and background, as well as bulk up the “Salinity” and “Alkalinity” sections. Two questions: How did paleoceanography develop/ what is its history? What could you do to diversify some of your sources / are there better sources you could have chosen? Dprov24 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This page is not locked, which is good because it means as new research is done the findings of that research in this field can easily be added to the page.It seems as though most if not all of the facts are referred with a reliable reference and the links to those references do work. The article does a good job of remaining neutral and there are no particular facts or statements that stick out to me as being overstated or having a bias. The sources support the research that is cited and, though every source has some bias inherently, none of the sources I checked out seem overwhelmingly so. Snoc1197 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

GEOG 3900: Article Review
The information, content, and references I found in the Paleoceanography article from my analysis are majority accurate and unbiased. I found that looking through the article thoroughly that there are many sources linked to every paragraph and section that can be found at the bottom of the page where the references are. Then looking at the references I found that they all come from academic peer-reviewed articles and magazines including Science, Nature, and the University of Chicago Press Journals to name a few. This assures me as the reader that these articles are based upon facts and information that is reliable for me to use and understand the subject area better without worry of being persuaded to think about the topic subjectively.

Additionally the article gives information about solely Paleoceanography and relevant information needed to understand the study while not losing focus. I find that even though I am new to the subject the article helps explain the terms I am unsure about. What I find to be one of the best features about Wikipedia as well is that it provides many hyperlinks to follow to other Wikipedia articles that explain the difficult or less well known terms, for instance alkenones. This makes the article shorter and easier to retain so that focus isn't lost on trying to explain the difficult terms within the article itself. RachelBeery (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Rachel Beery

Geog 3900 Article Review
Each fact is not referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. In fact, in the first paragraph, there are no citations at all, just bold definitions with no reference. There are also often cases throughout the article where a couple sentences of facts will be given, followed by a citation after the last sentence, which I believe is okay, but then another sentence will be tossed on the end of the paragraph and not referenced. Therefore, is the last sentence meant to be included in the preceding citation, or is it new un-cited information, perhaps from the editor?

The information seems up-to-date, however, there are a couple of missing sections that I think could be of interest and good use. For example, it would be very informative and intriguing to have pictures of some of the actual references cores. Also, I think it would be beneficial to add a section that gives information about where paleoceanographic data is currently being collected and from where, ie what oceans and seas and what parts of each. Finally, I think that a section about the history of paleoceanography would be very useful and appropriate, detailing perhaps early methods, when and where it was first used and by whom. Just4Kicks (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)