User:Mckanderson14/sandbox


 * Note: I do not believe Wikipedia has an article about the Maldives Whale Shark Research Programme (MWSRP).

Reviewed Articles

 * 1) Continuous Plankton Recorder
 * 2) DataONE
 * 3) iNaturalist
 * 4) Bioblitz

Article 1: Continuous Plankton Recorder
From the Citizen science Wikipedia page, I found an article about a biological survey tool called a Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR). The following sub-sections discuss the topics brought up in the "Evaluating a Wikipedia article" section of the project.

Relevance
The Wikipedia article I chose was fairly short, and the subject matter all related to the specific survey methodology. It also expanded on the subject to discuss the way in which it is used to collect samples, and how it has effected environmental science.

Neutrality/Bias
Reading through the article a few times has lead me to conclude that the content is unbiased and mostly educational/factual with no intent of swaying a reader one way or another. However, it did seem

Over and Under Representation
The CPR does not seem to be over represented as not much is written in the article. There may be a bit of under representation depending on how much research has been published about this methodology.

Citations & Credibility
In the introduction, the author describes the CPR survey method as "the "...only measure of plankton communities on a pan-oceanic scale." I would like to know how this was concluded and from which source(s) were used in determining this as a fact. Furthermore, is this up to date? Could have been true when it was first written, but may no longer be the case.

Could be updated to have more recent statistics about some of the sources. Under the "Sampling and analysis" section in the article, the author cites two sources, but only at the very end of the section. It makes it unclear as to what information in the section came from what source. Should be more spread out and associated with specific sentences that include the specific data. I had to open the two sources to find out what exactly in the whole section came from what source. It is safe to assume that the other information included in the article may now be out of date.
 * Number of taxa commonly encountered is now 628 according to one of their sources.
 * Could read the sources and determine the best way of spreading out the citations to make the origins of the data more clear to the readers.
 * I need to go back through it in detail to determine the exact edits I would make to the article.

Discussion & Rating
Currently, there is not any activity on the Talk page, nor is the article rated. I could begin a discussion on the talk page when I have a list of edits.

Article 2: DataONE
DataONE was discussed in class during one of the data management lectures. It is a web-based, open-source data organization tool.

Relevance
Were the topics in the article relevant to the overall subject?

Article 3: iNaturalist
iNaturalist provides a large database of world-wide biological diversity. Participants can take pictures of local flora and fauna, upload them to the app, and find out what species they encountered meanwhile supporting biodiversity research.

Article 4: Bioblitz
Bioblitz was a major topic discussed in class including a guest lecture from Damon Tighe and involves large ecological surveys with the goal of determining the overall biodiversity in various areas.