User:Ga66yG/sandbox

While you read, consider some questions (but don't feel limited to these): Mangrove Tree Distribution
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * All of the facts that I saw were supported by papers.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Nothing was distracting.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This article is not a neutral article. It's more about the benefits of mangrove trees and their area loss, instead of only the distribution. This was a little weird to me, as the content didn't reflect the title.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * They all seem to be from ecology/conservation journals. They're biased in the sense that most of them are in support of reforestation, but not in the sense that they are being funded by a problematic industry or company.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It's largely told from a conservationist's viewpoint.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * The 26th citation's link does not work. I didn't see any close paraphrasing or plagiarism from the papers I looked at.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The majority of the citations are from 2009 and before, but there are a couple as recent as 2016. I would imagine that more case studies could be added. It also doesn't mention very much about the tie to climate change.
 * 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 the page probably had a lot of false edits from deniers or just people that want to stir up trouble. Semi-protected means that you have to have had an account for 4 days and made 10 edits before you can edit it. This protects it from people that have been banned and people that wish to remain anonymous when they spam. I think it's a good thing. It protects the article, and if somebody sees something they really think should be changed then they have to put a little work in before being allowed to edit. This protects the page from casual trolls that won't want to spend the time it takes to be allowed to edit.
 * 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?
 * The only discussion is about how close it comes to violating the rule against journal articles/academic papers. It seems to be a term paper which is a fuzzy area in the rulebook. It is rated as C-Class and of low-importance.
 * If you picked the article about Ecology to evaluate - did you see mention of climate change? Why or why not? If you were going to create a new article about climate change and it's relationship to Ecology, what information would you add?