User:Cdaigle22/sandbox


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * No, I have found some statements lacking proper citations. Though most references I have followed appear to be reliable. Blanket statements about how climate change may cause certain species of fungi, bacteria, and plant to spread are not backed by references. So much information from the Regional Effects of Global Warming page are unreferenced.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * For the most part, everything is relevant but the hyperlinks to different topics distracted me to other pages. While the other pages elaborated further on the information that I was curious about, it distracted me from the page that I was reading.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The statement that fossil fuel combustion leads to emissions responsible for climate change on the Climate Change page is highly disputed among the public, but much less so in the scientific community.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Many of the sources that are used to present information come from biased sources but are written in wikipedia as unbiased. Such as the the source by Tim Flannery, How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth. This source is biased as to what Flannery claims is the cause of global warming as well as his conservative nature. While the source is used in the wikipedia page neutrally, it comes from a biased paper.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe the viewpoint of the skepticism of climate change is largely under-represented.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * All of the links that I followed worked. Of the 5 sources that I visited, there was only 1 example of something close to close paraphrasing. This example may have been borderline close paraphrasing but no plagiarism was observed.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Many of the sources are out of date for sure. The effects of water is out of date information by over a decade which is important because greater change has been observed as we move closer to the present both in increasing CO2 emissions and preventative measures.
 * Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?
 * It is a semi-protected article because it is a controversial topic. Many individuals have strong opinions on Climate Change and the causes of Climate Change. I think it is definitely a good thing that the article is semi-protected as it is a hot topic and would frequently be subject to changes from underinformed individuals.
 * 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?
 * Articles are A-Ranked if they are considered "complete", the Climate Change article is rated a B because it requires further work and more content and expert knowledge is needed. The main talk on the page now is on trying to engage people on the page without immediately redirecting them to Global Warming page. Mostly based on formatting and possible hyperlink errors.