User:Jegg247/sandbox

=
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is scientific information presented clearly, accurately, and without jargon? Does the article link to other Wikipedia articles for related topics? ====== There can definitely be more information on the formation of the Circumpolar Deep Water. I'm not sure where the author got the temperature-salinity information because none of the articles linked talk about the temeperature salinity of the CDW and if the method the author stated was the correct way to calculate temp-salinity for CDW. There should definitely be more mentioning on how the CDW is melting artic ice shelves. There is an abundance of specifics including the CDW interaction with different shelves. They do link several words to other Wikipedia articles for references however, they could link temperature-salinity. Also it is unclear how the last two paragraphs relate to the CDW as there is not much explanation connecting it to the rest of the information. Otherwise the information is presented clearly and wtihout jargon.

Evaluating tone. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The article seems nuetral and mostly factual. However, in the second to last paragraph there seems to be an opinion that the increase in air temp is not the sole cause of change in glaciers. There is no elaboration on either viewpoint making both opinions underrepresented.

=
Evaluating sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? ====== The citations work and for the most part support the claims in the article (mentioned above is an example where information is not supported by articles). The sources are reliable and appropriate without bias. The last two paragraphs are plagarized from the last source. The previous author copied the source word for word without indicating that it was a direct quote from the source. Either way, citations and copying are both forms of plagarizm so even if they had indicated that it was a direct quote that still would have been unacceptable.

'''Evaluating talk page. Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

There are currently no conversations occuring. The article rated "stub-class" on the project quality scale and is rated "low-importance" on the project's importance scale. It is apart of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography and WikiProject Oceans.