User:C windhorst/sandbox

EEB 3408W Climate Change Article notes: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? 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? 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? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing? 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?
 * 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to see more facts on how the climate record is being assembled, they reference the idea and that it has been done, but do not cite actual research or websites that pertain to the information.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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * I personally could not determine view points, except on the concept of those who wrote this article believe in climate change.
 * The ones that I checked did. I couldn't find any plagiarism. yet.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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? 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? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? 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?
 * Yes, even from the start it is referenced.
 * 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.
 * Not really, it stuck very well to the topic.
 * Most of the info comes from peer reviewed journals.
 * Not that I could tell.
 * Not from the few citations I looked at, a more in depth reading and review would need to occur.
 * page was created in 2008, could use more info thats up to date
 * 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? 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? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? 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? C windhorst (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * no, introduction facts should be cited to promote expansion on ideas and help readers link to certain articles or published works.
 * 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.
 * 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!
 * seemingly scientific and informative, neutral sources
 * No, indigenous people are mentioned
 * Couldn't find any, would have to check each individual source
 * seemingly current, most often cited from 2012.
 * Ranking of a C, has talk about links that no longer work due to EPA retracting climate change in the Trump and Pruitt administration.