User:Eg.newman96/sandbox

Article #1: Climate Change
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? = Most of the facts were referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference but not all.  Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? = Since climate change is such a broad topic, everything in the article seemed to stay on track.   Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? = The article seems neutral. Whenever there are claims about anthropogenic causes of climate change (a subject which may potentially be at risk of bias from either side of the issue), the article uses direct quotations from reliable sources.   Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? = Most of the information came from IPCC conclusions, global climate databases, and scientific papers. For the most part, I think these are neutral sources as they go through a peer review process.   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? = The only viewpoint I could see that would be underrepresented would be a climate-change denier, but that is very heavily biased so it makes sense why that was not included.   Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? = Of the three citations I checked, the links worked. There was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism that I found.   Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? = Quite a few of the articles were from a few years ago, but this may just be because nothing has come out recently that refutes the information. I wouldn't say anything is missing necessarily, but there could be more on ocean acidification and effects of climate change on the ocean.   Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?  = I think this is because it has become such a controversial and political issue in today's society. I think it is a good thing that this article is semi-protected because it protects against people including their biases.   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? = When it comes to representing these issues, people in the talk page are discussing how the page has a significant focus on anthropogenic climate change instead of on natural climate changes as well.

Notes for adding info to a new article - World Wetlands Day (World Wetlands Day)
 * "Each year, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and groups of citizens at all levels of the community have taken advantage of the opportunity to undertake actions aimed at raising public awareness of wetland values and benefits in general and the Ramsar Convention in particular."
 * I will add the information below after this sentence in the original article
 * Wetlands are very biologically diverse and provide habitat for many species
 * They serve as buffers on the coast against storms and flooding
 * Wetlands naturally filter water and breakdown or transform harmful pollutants
 * In 1-2 sentences: Some of these values and benefits include: wetlands are very biologically diverse ecosystems and provide habitat for many species, they serve as buffers on the coast against storms and flooding, and they naturally filter water by breaking down or transforming harmful pollutants.