User:Huber447/sandbox

Reflect back to what you learned in the "Evaluating Articles and Sources" training (linked below in case you need to re-take it). - I learned how to evaluate articles and the most important thing I learned was that you need multiple articles to cite something. You can't insert your own opinion into sources even if it's a logical conclusion from the source, you can only cite the source.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? - Yes Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? - Most information was relevant, nothing distracted me. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - The article seemed very neutral to me. The claims are all backed by sources, so they don't seem biased. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? - Most information is from accredited sources such as journals or state websites. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Since climate change is such a large topic there are probably viewpoints that are underrepresented, however the article includes a ton of information so to me, everything seems represented. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? - The links for the citations that I clicked worked. I didn't notice any plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? - One of the articles on the plant diversity page is from 1998, which is pretty long ago. I didn't see any missing citations. Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing? - Most likely because there are people that adamantly deny climate change exists, and if they could edit the page they might just erase everything. 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 community is talking about how relevant a source is and editing the section about "climate change being chaotic". The status is Delisted Good Article. 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? - Didn't choose this article. I would add information that climate change is changing ecology and ecological borders around the world.