User:Annaterp/sandbox

Adding a Sentence Practice
Despite the vulture crisis, diclofenac remains available in other countries including many in Europe. It was controversially approved for veterinary use in Spain in 2013 and continues to be available, despite Spain being home to around 90% of the European vulture population and an independent simulation showing that the drug could reduce the population of vultures by 1–8% annually. Spain's medicine agency presented simulations suggesting that the number of deaths would be quite small. New sanitary regulation laws regarding animal carcass disposal in Spain also reduce the amount of available food for vultures while adding to costs and greenhouse emissions.

Spain has this thing and it's bad.

Article Evaluation
Article Chosen: Cape vulture

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * All the content in the article is relevant to the topic of cape vultures. Some of the phrasing is a little odd because it's very simplified, but that just makes it easy to read.  I was surprised by how relatively short the article was compared to that of many other animals on wikipedia--the length itself was a little distracting.
 * The article seems neutral in describing the birds, but heavily focused on the conservation efforts of the birds. While that is good from the standpoint on conservation and for our class, it's odd that there is not more content describing the normal habitat and lifestyle of the birds.  Those sections are relatively short.
 * Like I said, in general more sections could be added to go more in depth about the different aspects of cape vulture's morphology and lifestyle, rather than just a short section titled "description" of the bird. Additionally, while there is a section on conservation issues, there is no section on steps that are being carried out to help alleviate them, which makes that section feel incomplete.
 * Yes, the links to online articles that are present work and contain information that verifies the claims of the articles. The print sources have ISBN codes, which makes them seem more reliable.  However, overall there are not a lot of references (only 5), but that might also be due to the limited size and scope of the article itself.
 * Most of the facts include a reliable reference which can be accessed online to verify. These sources are usually other conservation projects, factsheets on endangered animals, or studies of vulture habitat and breeding.  These are not neutral sources in that their underlying goal is to help conserve vultures, but that is an angle that most articles on threatened animals take.  A few statements, however, do not link directly to a source, and do not answer the question "says who?" which makes them seem less reliable.  An example is, "The two prominent bare skin patches at the base of the neck, also found in the white-backed vulture, are thought to be temperature sensors and used for detecting the presence of thermals," stated without citation.
 * The last estimate of total population goes back to 2013, which is now five years ago. However, other information is more updated to 2015 or 2017, so perhaps newer figures are not available.  Some missing information that could be added includes more content on the bird's lifestyle and conservation efforts rather than just threats.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is not much going on in the Talk page. However, based on the article history, the last edit was in December of 2017 by a bot for a formatting issue.  The latest sections to be added include more information on conservation issues and habitat and distribution. There is not much of a conversation visible in the history page either, but most of the content seems to have been generated by one user back in January 2016 and then just had minor edits or expansions since.
 * The article is part of the WikiProject Birds and has been rated both Start-Class and Low-Importance.
 * Actually, the article covers a lot of the main points we've discussed in class. The large section on conservation issues are all things we covered in class, from the poisoning (and how it can also lead to human poisoning) to wind energy and loss of habitat.  It also mentions the importance of the cliff sites for nesting and reproduction, and the low reproductive rates of the birds combined with very specific feeding and migratory behavior.  However, there is less of a solutions-oriented perspective that we have in class as we progress on our projects.