User:Jdk2018/sandbox

Wikipedia Article
To view the Wikipedia article I'm drafting/creating, see the sandbox I've created for it at User:Jdk2018/Southern Hudson Bay taiga

Copyedit
For copyedit exercise, see changes made to Ecosystem management article.

Content
The first few paragraphs in this article do a decent job explaining what a community is and how community ecology is defined as a discipline, however I feel this article is lacking a greater sense of direction and context. For example, the population ecology article has a much broader focus and does a much better job of introducing the entire discipline. Community ecology is one of the major fields of ecology alongside organism ecology, population ecology, and ecosystem ecology. I feel the theories, interspecific interactions, and community structures listed in this article are not sufficiently explained/elaborated upon. The article is also lacking an abundance of images which I feel could greatly improve its quality.

Tone
For the most part, the article appears to be written with a neutral tone. There are a number of digressions which do not really convey the full extent of the scientific discussion (i.e. mentioning specific arguments that scientists have made but not the opposing views).

Talk Page
The discussion on the talk page is largely concerned with merging propositions and link fixes. I posted on the talk page to try and get a consensus from the community on what can be expanded upon/improved.

Other Potential Articles

 * Orbital forcing
 * Evergreen forest
 * Potentiometric surface
 * Bioregion

Content
For the most part, the content of this article is very relevant to Canada's Air Quality Health Index. Much of the information is directly related to Environment Canada's summary of this scale and does a good job of documenting everything from its development to its calculation. Perhaps one section of the article which was distracting was the Lifestyle section which felt slightly redundant - there were multiple paragraphs that simply repeated the same information. None of the information itself seemed out of date. Possible improvements that could be made include discussing/listing any differences in models between provinces other than Alberta and Ontario.

Tone
The article appears to be neutral and there are no perceivable biased claims. While there is a section that exclusively discusses Alberta's AQHI, it's not that it should be removed because of over representation but rather the article could discuss or mention any policy differences that the other provinces possess.

Talk Page
The discussion in the Talk page is mostly concerned with modifying and correcting links to ensure that they work properly.The article is part of both WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Canada and is rated as mid-importance start-class and low-importance start-class in the respective projects. The way this article is presented in Wikipedia is largely similar to how I have witnesses it being discussed in academic settings, with a focus on what the scale means and how it was developed.