User:Dprov24/sandbox

Notes on 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?