User:Nguy2330/sandbox


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * For Climate Change, majority of facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Some places that aren't referenced is at the beginning only referencing what global warming is but other facts are not referenced. Also the "Temperature measurements and proxies" and "Ice Cores" subsections under "Physical Evidence" does not reference an sources.
 * For Effects of Climate Change on Plant Biodiversity, the "Modern context" should have some references as that section is lacking. Otherwise, for each fact, the article references a reliable source.
 * For Climate Change and Agriculture, the article references all its facts.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * For Climate Change,
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?
 * Check the "talk" page of the articles - what is the Wikipedia community discussing when it comes to representing these issues? How is the article ranked on Wikipedia's quality scale?
 * If you picked the article about Ecology to evaluate - did you see mention of climate change? Why or why not? If you were going to create a new article about climate change and it's relationship to Ecology, what information would you add?