User:Liaod18/sandbox

Rough Draft
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_soup

Sources of Plastic Pollution

“Plastic is a type of synthetic polymer made from petroleum.” They have various uses for everyday life which include “packaging, building and construction, household and sports equipment, vehicles, electronics and agriculture” [1]. Increased consumption and rapid disposal of plastics have contributed to the formation of plastic soups. Most of the plastic wastes come from in marine environments are from lands such as urban environments, storm runoff, beach wastes, improper waste disposal, illegal dumping, construction and industrial activities [1]. Plastic pollution found in oceans are mostly plastics that are less than 1cm in diameter, which are considered and microplastics [3]. Microplastics, are the types of plastic considered in water when discussing plastic soups. This type of plastic forms when it is subjected to UV radiation, wind and other environmental factors that break down plastics into smaller pieces [1]. Plastic pollution has first been reported in the 1970’s, in a scientific literature. However, throughout the past few decades, plastic wastes have been an increasingly global, political and environmental problem the past few decades which will impose ramifications for future generations [3].

Notable Examples

Concentrations of plastic pollution in oceans have been reported to be in remote areas or the ocean. Plastic consumption started in the 1950’s and have accumulated since then [3]. There are numerous examples worldwide where plastic pollution in oceans are prevalent and widespread. An infamous example includes the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” which is estimated that it carries around 100 million tons of waste [2]. This area covers the californian coast up to Hawaii and to Japan. The area is known to be “translucent” and are not detectable by satellite and can only be viewed from ships that are near it. It has also been reported that areas in the north Atlantic as well as “all five subtropical ocean gyres” all suffer from plastic soups [3]. The garbage also has a tendency to go down to the ocean floor and not just on the surface. The seafloor beneath the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has also been reported to have 70% of its trash on the seafloor [4]. This poses implications on all levels of the oceans, affecting the every marine life in the ocean.

Reference

[1] IUNC. (2018, December 05). Marine plastics. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastics

[2] Marks, K., Asia-Pacific Correspondent, & Howden, D. (2011, October 23). The world's rubbish dump: A tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

[3] Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K. L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E. K., Peacock, E. E., & Reddy, C. M. (2010). The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin,60(10), 1873-1878. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.07.020

[4] National Geographic Society. (2012, October 09). Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

Note: I am working with username Wylanz. I am responsible for adding onto the wiki page by putting information on "Sources of Plastic Pollution" and "Notable Examples." My partner will be responsible for "Laws" and "Harm to Wildlife."

Reflective Essay
During the article evaluation, I learned that you have to analyze text and see if the ideas come from reliable resources, and that they must be from trusted sources such as journals and government websites and not opinionated sources or sources that are far from credible. I approached the critiquing an article assignment by actively looking for ideas and information on the text and seeing if they cited a source and if that source is reliable. The articles I chose to utilize for my articles came from Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a tool that is basically a Google search tool however, the websites that pop out of it are peer reviewed journals. I chose this platform because it was going to be easier for me to write my article, as well as to be sure that the articles and sources that I will be using will be reliable.

The summary of my edits include adding a reference in week 5 and editing a sentence in week 6. The edit I made in week 5 was adding a citation to the article “Population fragmentation.” I added a citation to a part where it did not contain any citation to an idea of the text, The idea of the text talked about an accumulation of deleterious mutations in small populations where fragmentation has occurred. This scientific fact did not contain any information so I added a journal article called “The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants” from the journal “Trends in Ecology and Evolution.” The edit I made in week 6 was changing a sentence on the Wikipedia page “Meltwater Management.” I edited the original sentence due to grammatical errors from "In spring as snow melts, the salt used on roads as a deicer is left behind, which can be environmentally damaging as it creates a hypertonic environment for plants" to "In the Spring as snow melts, the salt utilized on roads as a diecer are left behind. This can be environmentally damaging as it creates a hypertonic environment for plants." I feel that for week 5, my edits were valuable because if a reader reads the text, they know that it is a reliable resource. Also they can use the citation I included to further their own research or knowledge. For the week 6 edit, I believe that having a grammatically correct article will allude more people to read Wikipedia articles as well as help them with their knowledge and research as it will be easier to comprehend and read.

The peer review process requires us to go to a rough draft, and then edit it for the student. This will allow us to look at the good and the bad on a certain content and help us apply it to our drafts. Furthermore, getting feedback from a fellow peer can help you determine what to change, what to keep and what to improve on. In my peer review articles, I contributed by reviewing 2 of my peers, one for Kthay1997 and one for Anne.rachel. For both articles, I talked about how their work looks good, to be supportive of their article and made suggestions to it as well. Kthay1997 did not have a citation for the first sentence she had that included information. So I reminded her to provide a reference to that sentence. Other than that, I mentioned that she did a good job sourcing everything else. For Anne.rachel, I noticed that she sourced everything however, there were not hyperlinks to her footnotes. I mentioned that she did a good job sourcing everything but just reminded her to not forget to add the links. So far, there were no recommendations on my articles from my peers.

I did not receive any feedback from other wikipedia users. However, if I did, I would take their consideration seriously and use their insight to improve on my work to be better. I would use their suggestions or concerns and try to make changes on the work that I have done. I feel that people would only comment if they see something wrong in the wikipedia community and that all they are trying to do is to make my work better so the people who access it will have a better experience.

I have learned a lot in the Wikipedia component of this course over the past semester. It has allowed me to critique articles by analyzing texts more thoroughly, make my own edits and changes towards the articles, conduct peer reviews, handle feedback from fellow users and learn how Wikipedia publishing works overall. The wikipedia assignment differed from my other assignments that I have done in the past is that this assignment will be seen for the public and not just my TA. What I mean by that is that my work is being reviewed by the general public as well. Doing this assignment made me think more critically about the quality of content I wrote down. Even though I strive to always provide excellent work to hand in when I have assignments, the difference here is that my writing can influence the knowledge and research another person is doing if they decide to use my content as a source. From here, there is added pressure and responsibility to provide an error free work for the readers. I will be adding more content to the page “Plastic Soup” on my final wikipedia article. So far, that article only contains a few sentences. I believe that Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding of my topic because I will be adding more information on it. I will be adding the history, the causes, the solutions for plastic soup because it does not have that information on the page right now. I believe that what I will be writing about is important because we are damaging the earth by exploiting resources as well as polluting our oceans and land. By improving on the page, I will be able to spread more knowledge and hopefully make a difference by increasing the awareness of the problem.

Peer Review
I made suggestions to 2 of my collegues peer review.

For: Kthay1997

"Hi there!

I think the work you have done is great!

An advice that I have for you is that for the first sentence that you have, you mentioned that there are "three distinct types of glacial refugia." However, you did not add any citations to the source you got it from. But I can see that you provided a source for the actual individual ones, but I am suggesting you add one to the first sentence.

Thanks! and goodluck :)"

I added this peer review because she did not have a citation for this sentence "In studies exploring the extent of glacial refugia in mountain species, three distinct types of glacial refugia have been identified." I feel that a citation of where this general information would be helpful to whoever is reading the page.

For: Anne.rachel

"Hi there!

Good job on your rough draft. It is looking good :)

I just wanted to make a suggestion. I can see that you have sourced your information properly however, there are no hyperlinks to the [#] sources that you have provided. I just wanted to sugget this so that the people reading your page can have something to refer to.

Goodluck!"

I recommened those changes because the individual did not have any hyperlinks to the sources she provided. I feel that it might confuse the readers not having that. Also, having that can provide a better wikipedia experience for the readers as they can having something to refer to.

Week 6
I edited a sentence in the wikipedia page of Meltwater management.

The original sentence was "In spring as snow melts, the salt used on roads as a deicer is left behind, which can be environmentally damaging as it creates a hypertonic environment for plants." and I changed it to "In the Spring as snow melts, the salt utilized on roads as a diecer are left behind. This can be environmentally damaging as it creates a hypertonic environment for plants"

I put "the" in between "In Spring" as well as used "are" instead of "is" when referring to the salt.

References (Week 5)
I added a citation to the article "Population fragmentation" because it did not have a citation for this section of a paragraph

"The performance of plants may be compromised by less effective selection which causes an accumulation of deleterious mutations in small populations. Since individuals in small populations are more likely to be related, they are more likely to inbreed. A reduction in fitness may occur in small plant populations because of mutation accumulation, reduced genetic diversity, and increased inbreeding."

This is the citation I used "Young, A., Boyle, T., & Brown, T. (1996). The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(10), 413-418. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10045-8" and it is labeled as citation "6" on the wikipedia page

Your article selection (week 4)

 * 1) Meltwater management

-The article's content is relevant to the topic, however, the first paragraph is a bit confusing.

-The article is written neutrally, does not contain any bias or endorses anything.

-Each claim does not have a citation, it talks about what snowrunoff is but no cite, talks about hwo the process works but there is no reference either.

-There are 2 references. One to a university page and one to NBC news. The one to the university is reliable but the NBC news is not.

2. Population fragmentation

-The article's content is relevant to the topic.

-The article is neutrally written, containing scientific facts.

-Most of the claim has a citation, however when talking about the examples of causes, it does not. However, all of the biological facts it states has a citation.

-There are 4 refenences and they are all peer-reviews journal articles which means they are all reliable.

3. Plastic soup

-The article's content is relevant to the topic.

-The article is written neutrally, contaning its history as well as definitions.

-All of the claims have citations except for the beginning paragraph, where it explains the defintition.

-There are citations from peer reviewed journals and citations from random websites. Thus the citations for half of it is reliable but the other half is not.

Your article evaluation (week 3)
- Everything in the article is relevant to my topic. A thing that distracted me is the fact that it talked about associations relating to Envrionmental Studies however, it is bolded in red, meaning there are no wikipedia articles relating to that which is a bit frustrating.

-The last date mentioned was in 2011, which is 8 years ago. Mising things could be information about the associations.

-A thing that can be improved is the addition of more sources for the associations as well as the history of the definition of "environmental studies", which is usually always included in wikipedia articles.

-The article is neutral. And there are no claims that appear heavily biased.

-Viewpoints that are overrepresented are university courses/programs that are offered in it, it is the main focal point of the article. Views that are underrepresented could be things like prominent environment studies people, or the origin of environmental studies.

-The link works, however, some of them need further access. The links that do work support the claims in the article

-Yes and no, the information came from college websites/association websites which may be a bit credible, but also may have bias. The article does not have any bias, but the information may have bias since they are talking about themselves

-Yes, these are neutral sources. The article only presents facts and does not sway or state any opinions.

-There are no conversations going on in the topic.

-The article is rated as Stub-Class (quality scale) and High-importance (important scale) on WikiProject Environment, Stub-Class (quality scale) on WikiProject Education and Start Class (quality scale) on WikiProject Universities

-Things we have not talked about in class were organizations, beginnings of environmental studies in the educational context.

Environmental studies