User:Msefami/sandbox


 * Article Evaluation

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Most of the information in the article seemed relevant to the topic. There sentence "The project is named for the Roman god of the sea." seemed a little bit superfluous but other than that the information was solid. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There article is neutral. There doesn't seem to be any claims that appear biased toward any argument on the topic. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Since there is really on viewpoints to be talked about in this article nothing is really overrepresented or underrepresented. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citation links do not work so I am not sure if they support the article or not.

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?

Since I cannot open either of the sources, I cannot tell if they are reliable or have any biased perspective. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Since the links for the references don;t work anymore, the page seems to be out of date but I am not sure if there needs to be any more information added about the topic. Check out the Talk page of the article. 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?

The talk page includes the fact that the sources are out of date and do not work and also talks about expanding the information on the page. It also talks about renaming the page so that it is more specific and not confused with another thing of the same name.

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

We have not talked about this in class as far as I know so I don't know hat our class would say about it.

I think that this article could be made better by also fixing the grammatical errors that the original author made

Article:

Paris Climate Agreement 2016
On April 22, 2016 the Paris Climate Accords were signed by all but three countries around the world. The conference to talk about this document was held in Paris, France. This put Europe in the epicenter of talks about the environment and climate change. The EU was the first major economy that decided to submit its intended contribution to the new agreement in March of 2015. The EU ratified the Paris Agreement on October 5th, 2015.

In these talks the countries agreed that they all had a long-term goal of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. They agreed that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible, and recognize that this will take longer for developing countries. On the subject of transparency the countries agreed that they would meet every five years to set ambitious goals, report their progress to the pubic and each other, and track progress for their long-term goals throughout a transparent and accountable system.

The countries recognized the importance of non-party stakeholders to be involved in this process. Cities, regions, and local authorities are encouraged to uphold and promote regional and international cooperation.

Sabrina Peer Review Additional Feedback:

Agree with the information above, I also think that there can be a lot of additional information that is added since there is a lot of new publishings. Check out more recent IPCC Reports because they will have more relevant information. Can also expand on the Emissions section, considering there is probably more sources that are contributing to the problem besides just coal. We haven't discussed too much about climate change in Europe specifically in class, but there are many sources that are published, and you can also pick specific countries that are contributing more to climate change.