User:Ljutica/sandbox

= Article Evaluation =

Evaluating Content
1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

What distracted me was how the author focused on America having many sustainability programs available in universities, why was no reference made to other countries having programs? Then they begin the next paragraph talking about how other countries, namely Norway, made efforts to create ecologically sustainable developments.

2. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

I believe that the article completely disregarded a very crucial point in sustainability. There was no mention of sustainable agriculture and diet, the article only focused on land development practices. Animal agriculture, in particular, plays a huge role in climate change, a topic which so many seem to ignore.

3. What else could be improved?

If this article is to be improved it must include available information on all aspects of sustainability. There must be more elaboration on other sustainability studies such as those involving agriculture and health which directly impact our lives every day.

Evaluating Tone
1. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No this article is not entirely neutral. There are definitely claims that our environment is currently in crisis, a view which not everyone would agree with despite there being plenty of data suggesting climate change is real.

2. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, there are unbalanced viewpoints in this article. The article relies heavily on this source for information on explaining what will occur in the future if we do not take action and implement sustainability practices.

Evaluating Sources
1. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links tested were all functional. The sources are subjective and the article does contain unbalanced viewpoints.

2. 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?

Yes, each fact is referenced with a source, but the article relies heavily on a single source (link to source article here). The information comes from eight different sources, not all seem to be credible sources. As an example, the eighth source is from wayup.com and there is no information on who wrote their article or any of the references for their information and statistics. Furthermore, this site shows bias (not noted) for several of their claims so no this is not a neutral source.

Checking the Talk Page
1. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There aren't any conversations going on behind the scenes of this topic.

2. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. However, it has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. The article is a part of both the WikiProject Environment and is in the scope of WikiProject Universities.

3. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Wikipedia attempts to compile as much information as possible about a subject. It strives to be an "encyclopedia" of information on immense available topics. Compared to during lecture, we only have a set amount of time to learn. Therefore, we try to restrict ourselves to the essentials and the most important concepts of each topic we study.

Optional Activity
Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes - ~.

= Article Selection =

Micro-sustainability
 * This article lacks citations required for verification of information.
 * Currently, there are only three citations on the page.
 * Completeness score: 35

Polar Desert
 * Only two sources and missing several citations.
 * Article is a stub and needs to be expanded.
 * One of the sources is very outdated.
 * Completeness score: 37

Boreal ecosystem
 * Only has one source.
 * Article has not been rated yet based on quality score
 * Completeness score: 22

= Add a Citation Exercise =

If you're working on creating a new article, draft 1-2 sentences in your sandbox summarizing a statement from one of your sources and cite that statement to your source.

Boreal ecosystem
Ecosystem Services: · In boreal forests, carbon cycling is a major producer of ecosystem services essentially timber production and climate regulation. Through ecosystem assessment, inventory data, and modeling scientists are able to determine the relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity and human influence.

· Forests themselves are producers of lumber products, regulation of water, soil and air quality.

· Within the past decade, the number of studies focusing on the relationships between ecosystem services have been increasing. This is due to the rise of human management of ecosystems through the manipulation of one ecosystem service to utilize its maximum productivity. Ultimately, this results in the supply decline of other ecosystem services.

= Copy Edit an Article = I chose to copy edit the article boreal ecosystem and will be fixing grammar, making the content flow better, and made sure to review what citations were used or may be required.

Pre-Copy Edit:



Post-Copy Edit:



Diff

= Finalize Topic = The topic I am choosing to do my Wikipedia assignment on is the boreal ecosystem article.

= Peer Review Articles = The two articles I am peer reviewing are Plastic soup and Freshet. The reviews can be seen under both of their talk pages.

Peer Review Article 1: Plastic soup
5 Necessary Elements:

→ Lead section: easy to understand?

The lead section is very short it basically only explains what the term plastic soup means. It is also one very long run-on sentence, so that should definitely be modified. Providing facts on its environmental effects could help to make the reader understand why it is a growing issue today.

→ Clear structure?

The third paragraph is one long run-on sentence and needs to be broken down into smaller sentences for better flow and structure.

→ Balanced coverage?

It seems to be lacking quite a bit of information on the growth of the plastic soups in the environment today. The article did mention a few foundations/organizations that are trying to make a difference, but adding in a table with a whole list of groups and their main objective could be a good idea. I think it is important to discuss more in-depth on how this plastic soup is having an effect on aquatic ecosystems. This would also expand on why protecting environments from plastic soup situations is important. The article seems to focus mainly on what types of plastic or debris constitute as types involved in the plastic soup.

→ Neutral content?

Yes, the article was neutral.

→ Reliable sources?

The third reference comes from a website which is not a primary source and it does not seem to have any properly cited references. Otherwise, the sources seem fine to use for the article.

Peer Review Article 2: Freshet
5 Necessary elements:

→ Lead section: easy to understand?

Yes, the lead section was easy to understand and it gave a clear overview of the topic. However, it was the longest paragraph in the article and maybe the implications of what factors affect the amount, or rate of freshets could be put into other subsequent paragraphs. This would leave only the key points required in the lead section.

→ Clear structure?

I found it very confusing to understand what the actual definition or meaning was for freshet because of the section “the term can also refer to the following” section.

→ Balanced coverage?

Yes, the topic’s coverage was balanced it mentioned the meaning and a variety of factors influencing freshets. The article could include how freshets can cause destruction in nearby communities and how they are generally dealt with.

→ Neutral content?

Yes, the content was neutral.

→ Reliable sources?

Yes, the sources were reliable. However, many of them seemed to be from dictionary sources rather than studies or more informative sources. This makes sense since the original author spent most of the article explaining the various meanings of the term freshet rather than the issues involved. More information along with reliable sources to support it should be added to the article.

Overall the article was well written, keep up the good work!

= Respond to Peer Reviews = (*Optional)

No peer reviews were left on the talk page to review.

= Reflective Essay =

Throughout the semester, I have been aiming to ameliorate the Wikipedia page named Boreal ecosystem. Not only by making the original article flow with better rhythm, but also adding to the information on this topic using several acceptable sources. Each week or biweekly, there would be checkpoints for different tasks that should be completed by a certain due date. I tried my best to have these tasks completed by the deadline, as I did not want to be overloaded at the end of the semester.

During the article evaluation, I learned that there are three key things to look for: tone, content, and sources. For tone, I was required to identify whether it was neutral or bias. Wikipedia does not want articles which reflect the opinion of the author, so neutrality is key when writing an article. For content, I was looking for substance or if there was enough information provided on the subject to gain a firm grasp on what the topic is about. If there were aspects that were lacking I made note of them so that later when adding to the article I remember to address these gaps. Finally, when evaluating the initial sources I looked for good, neutral, reliable sources and for a good amount of them. Typically, the stubs I found did not have many references and it was reflected in the lack of full information they had on their topic. Another good thing to check is the talk page to see if there are any ongoing discussions about the topic.

While I was doing the process of editing, I learned how important it is to ensure the quality content is being added to the article. The learning modules provided by Wikipedia gave me insight into what is a good source and this really helped me in the process. Some of the edits I made were grammatical errors, adding citations, enhancing the lead statement, and making the content of the article flow better. My goal was to really enhance the text that was already there and add more useful information to anyone doing research in this area.

In addition, we completed peer reviews for our classmates and the two Wikipedia articles I chose to review were Freshet and Plastic Soup. By evaluating my peer’s articles, it provided me with a new lens for finding places which would benefit from better sentence structure or more detail. Also, it gave me new ideas for categories or subsections that I could add to my own article. I realized that by evaluating different articles I also gained the ability to critically evaluate my own and realize where I need to make changes. Furthermore, for the feedback portion of the assignment, I did not receive any feedback from my peers on my talk page to respond to.

In general, from contributing to Wikipedia I have developed better writing skills and overall evaluation skills. I have learned how to provide information in a neutral, unbiased tone while maintaining formality. The most interesting part is that anything that I add to an article can be critiqued by anyone in the public. There are passionate people out there with plenty of expertise on almost any subject. They are able to add information for free to anyone who goes in search of it. We have also learned that anyone has the ability to question added information on an article’s talk page. I have been using Wikipedia for years, but its amazing how many things I did not initially know about. By providing information on Earth Systems on free websites such as Wikipedia, anyone at any age can enrich themselves with knowledge about their own planet. Hopefully in doing so more people will gain a higher level of respect for what is around them.

= Final Article Additions =

Climate Change Effects
Boreal ecosystems display high sensitivity towards both natural and anthropogenic climate change, atmospheric warming due to greenhouse gas emissions ultimately leads to a chain reaction of climatic and ecological effects. The initial effects of climate change on the boreal ecosystem can include, but are not limited to, changes in temperature, rainfall, and growing season. Based on studies from the boreal ecosystems in the Yukon, a territory in northwestern Canada, climate change is having an impact on these abiotic factors. As a consequence, these effects drive changes in forest ecotone as well as marshlands or lakes in boreal ecosystems. This also concerns plant productivity and predator-prey interactions, which ultimately leads to habitat loss, fragmentation, and threatens biodiversity.

In terms of boreal trees, the poleward limit for any given species is most likely defined by the temperature, whereas the equatorial limit is generally defined by competitive exclusion. Basically, as changes in climate occur, change in the corresponding weather variables follows. As climate conditions change, ecosystem alterations involving timing for migration, mating, plant blooming is can occur. This can lead to the transition into a different type of ecosystem as the northward shift of plant and animal species has already been observed. Trees may expand towards the tundra; however, they may not survive due to various temperature or precipitation stressors. The rate depends on growth and reproductive rate and adaptation ability of the vegetation. In addition, the migration of flora may lag behind warming for a few decades to a century, and in most cases warming happens faster than plants can keep up.

Due to permafrost thaw and disturbance alterations such as fire and insect outbreaks, certain models have suggested that boreal forests have developed into a net carbon source instead of a net carbon sink. Although the trees in the boreal are aging, they continue to accumulate carbon into their biomass. However, if disturbed higher than normal amounts of carbon will be lost to the atmosphere.

In some areas, boreal ecosystems are located on a layer of permafrost, which is a layer of permanently frozen soil. The underground root systems of boreal trees are stabilized by permafrost, a process which permits the deeper trapping of carbon in the soil and aids in the regulation of hydrology. Permafrost is able to store double the amount of current atmospheric carbon that can be mobilized and released to the atmosphere as greenhouse gases when thawed under a warming climate feedback. Boreal ecosystems contain approximately 338 Pg (petagrams) of carbon in their soil, this is comparable to the amount which is stored in biomass in tropical ecosystems.

Ecosystem Services
In boreal ecosystems, carbon cycling is a major producer of ecosystem services essentially timber production and climate regulation. The boreal ecosystem in Canada is one of the largest carbon reservoirs in the world. Moreover, these boreal ecosystems in Canada possess high hydroelectric potential and are thus, able to contribute to the resource-based economy. Through ecosystem assessment, inventory data, and modeling scientists are able to determine the relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity and human influence. Forests themselves are producers of lumber products, regulation of water, soil and air quality. Within the past decade, the number of studies focusing on the relationships between ecosystem services has been increasing. This is due to the rise of human management of ecosystems through the manipulation of one ecosystem service to utilize its maximum productivity. Ultimately, this results in the supply decline of other ecosystem services.

= References =