User:Cunningham.734/sandbox

Boldly boldness]] linking where no one linked before

Proxy (Climate) Sandbox Notes:
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Not every single fact is     referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. However, most      paragraphs have about 1-2 references cited.         The paragraph sections titled “Proxies”, “Tree Rings”,      and “Corals” seem to be lacking references.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article seems     to be relevant. The only thing that distracted me was all of the math and      equations under the paragraph “Water isotopes and temperature      reconstruction”. Is this section necessary? Again, I am not very      knowledgeable on this topic.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular    position?
 * The article appears to be     neutral.
 * Where does the information come from? Check the sources. Are they neutral sources? If biased, is that bias    noted?
 * Most of the articles are neutral,     reliable sources. However, I noticed that source 13 links directly to      CNN’s website. I believe this may be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations & references. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * There is definitely more     information reported on “Boreholes” than “Fossil Leaves”. A lot of the      references linked correctly.
 * Is the page locked? Take a look at Wikipedia's protection polic y - what is good or bad about this policy? How could it be abused?
 * No, the Proxy (Climate) article     is not locked. From my point of view, I know very little about this      subject (if anything) but have the ability to edit the information at the      drop of a hat. Looking into Wikipedia’s protection policy, some articles      may be placed under different levels of protection by Wikipedia admins,      in order to prevent over-modification. The good part about this feature      is security aspect, as it works to keep factual, good content safe from      edits with misleading intentions. The bad part of this feature is that it      may prevent worthy and intelligent edits from being made.
 * Is any information in the article that is out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most of the information comes     from sources that were published 2000-2016, what is considered out of      date?