User:Joh11786/sandbox

Climate Change Article:

In the first paragraph, there isn't much reference to other sources. This could be because the information is understood by a lot of people or the facts just haven't been attached to a source. Just from briefly skimming the article it looks like it's neutral; there aren't any parts that seem to sway the reader into thinking one way or the other. The article is to solely inform the reader about what climate change is. I checked some of the links and references and all of them have worked for me, so I know for sure where the references came from. I think the article gives a good balance between photos and written facts, and they all have references. Looking through the sources, most of them seem to come from scientific journals, so the info seems to come from actual experiments or just reputable scientists. I think the article is a semi-protected article because since it's such a general topic it gives a lot of people opportunity to add general info. However, the semi-protection only allows verified users who are logged in so that not just anyone can edit. There wasn't a lot of mention of political stances for the issue, which, I think for this case is good because it takes away any bias from the article. It seems fairly up to date, but I think it would be beneficial to include more info from this year (2017) or even 2016 because climate change keeps changing; the most up-to-date info would be the most beneficial. The language in the article helps make the article more understandable, and I think the language is a result of paraphrasing from sources. This also helps make the article more reputable because if facts are paraphrased from good sources then that means the information is legit. All of the info in the article is relevant to climate change and didn't trail off into random rants or topics, which helped made the article more reputable.