User:Nramberg/sandbox

Article Evaluation - Arctic Ecology - Arctic ecology

Content


 * Most information seems relevant except History of Arctic Ecology - seems to provide lots of off topic information given that the topic should focus on the actual ecology of the environment
 * Agree that it should still be a section with a brief background but too much content
 * Should be listed at beginning of article instead of middle
 * All references drawn from within a reasonable date

Tone


 * Language used is not biased
 * Statements (i.e. concerning temperature change) backed up
 * One instance of showing some opinion, commenting on lifestyle of arctic human inhabitants "amazingly"

Sources


 * List of references is not hyper linked to be able to lets the user click on citation and be instantly redirected to the source, however, when copied and pasted into Google search, the correct articles can be retrieved
 * References in reference list seem to all be reliable sources
 * External References - upon following link brought to mostly non reliable sources - some look like projects
 * In text citation references are very sparse.  Lots of information is being conveyed throughout the article leaving the reader not knowing what site said information came from  - full paragraphs/sections not cited

Talk Page


 * Several messages on talk page, mostly evaluations of article, some noting changes that have been made to the article
 * Article is part of a WikiProject Arctic and is rated C-class

Article Selection


 * 1) 1 - Canopy interception or Interception (water) - hyperlink wouldn't work

Included in article: definition of what canopy interception is, three methods of measuring interception; Information presented is not biased, and seems to come from reliable sources (although not hyperlinked), used in text citations. However, article only addresses the definition of topic as well as explains a few methods. Lots of content could be added.

Information that could be added: How different types of precipitation affects interception (i.e. snow vs rain vs fog), interception of coniferous vs deciduous, Hedstrom & Pomeroy method, Indirect vs Direct measurement, calculating Interception, role of interception in the water cycle


 * 1) 2 Cloud albedo

Included in article: Definition of albedo, what can change cloud albedo. Sources seem to be reliable, lots of in text citations. Information presented is relevant to topic. Language is neutral and informative. Introduction seems awkward, information given could be split up into it's own categories. Ideas: methods of measuring albedo, different cloud types, albedo and climate


 * 1) 3 Capping inversion

Included in article: Definition and some background info. Some relevant information but overall lacking. Language is not biased. The article is not structured properly, and all information falls under one broad section. Reference list and in text citations are missing, making it hard to judge reliability of information presented. Other information that could be included: Different atmospheric layers, processes that take place within this layer.

Adding a citation - to add to Canopy interception

The type of tree affects how much precipitation it will intercept. Although it can vary, conifers typically intercept more water. Conifers intercept approximately 25-35% of annual precipitation while deciduous trees intercept 15-25%. Coniferous trees intercept more because water clings to the needles, the abundance of needles creates increased surface area, and because there is increased air flow which allows for precipitation.

Article to Copyedit (week 5) - Arctic ecology

Peer Reviews
Left Peer reviews for Carbohydrate Fatty acid and Polidoroal

Reflective Essay
I learned a lot about Wikipedia and the editing process throughout the assignment. First, I’ll discuss the things I learned about critiquing articles. Through the article evaluation, I learned helpful skills to better review an article, and what to watch out for in an article that before I may have just skimmed past. To critique the article I selected, first I looked for a stub or start class article, to know that it had already been reviewed and showed room for improvement. Then, I looked at the structure (i.e. size od lead section, relative section size compared to others) to see where that could be improved. Finally, I read through each section looking carefully for bias or sentence structures that could be improved. As for deciding what information I decided to add to the article, I looked for sections that were relatively short in comparison to the others, and then out of those I picked sections that were either really interesting to me or that I had some previous background knowledge about.

Next, I’ll discuss my/summarize my contributions. The majority of information I added was to the chemical weathering section. I explained the different processes in more detail than previous versions. Given the time to work on the project I decided to focus on expanding sections I was more comfortable with, however many of the sections could be explained in more depth in the original article. I think that if someone with no background knowledge were to read the section now, they would have a much better understanding as to how the processes actually work. I also added a couple feedback loops that were previously unmentioned, including aerosol-climate feedback and chemical weathering & net primary productivity.

Now I’ll talk about the peer review process. I reviewed two peer’s contributions. For each review, I tried to include what I especially liked in the information they added. I also read the original articles of each in order to try to provide some suggestions about what other information they could potentially add. I also checked to make sure they were gathering their information from reliable sources. I also received a couple peer reviews on my contributions. They were both similar to the reviews I left, in that they commented both on what they liked as well as additional suggestions. One review also commented on the structure of my current draft, which is definitely something I’ll have to fix up before moving my work live, as I work on this project sporadically and want to ensure there is flow in the final draft. Overall the peer review process was really helpful.

Next I’ll discuss feedback. I received feedback from a Wikipedia editor when I shared my tentative additions I planned to contribute to the article. The editor mentioned that Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources. I talked to my professor to decide how to handle the feedback, as she requested primary sources be used. I didn’t respond to the editor, but I prefaced my work with “a study done showed that” in order to acknowledge that it is a primary source that I’d be referencing.

Finally, I’ll address Wikipedia in general. I learned a lot from contributing to Wikipedia. I learned that the process is a lot more in depth than I would have expected and that there is actually a lot of effort that goes into it in terms of editors trying to ensure reliable contributions are being made. This project is much different than ones I’ve done in the past – much more interactive. It’s also one of the only projects I’ve done where my final work is actually being put onto an actual website for other people to read. Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding in that it’s a free resource where anyone can go to acquire information. Anyone can access the information and this is important as it lets people learn more about the topics that interest them and become more informed. However, it still cant be fully relied upon, as anyone can add/delete information, and the editors can only work so fast to ensure the information is reliable.

Aerosol Feedback (new section to 2.2 of article (2.2.4) - negative feedback loop in Carbon cycle)
Studies have shown a link between temperature, carbon dioxide, photosynthesis, BVOC's and aerosols in the form of a climate feedback loop. Aerosols are small particles (anthropogenic or natural) present in earth’s atmosphere that absorb and prevent short wave radiation from arriving at the surface. Land plants emit a variety of non-methane biogenic volatile organic compounds, or BVOC’s, that play a role in the plant's growth and development, and can condense to form secondary organic aerosols (SOA). A rise in temperature would promote more terrestrial forest biomass, and thereby, increased photosynthesis rates. This, in turn, would increase the BVOC emissions – vegetation emits BVOC’s, like Terpenoids, which commonly lead to aerosol formation - BVOC emission, consequently, initiates increased production of secondary organic aerosol (SOA). This is done so by atmospheric oxidants like ozone, hydroxyl radicals and nitrate radicals rapidly reacting and resulting in low volatility products. This, in turn, increases natural aerosol production. With more aerosols in the atmosphere, more short wave radiation is absorbed, thus lowering the temperature and acting as a negative feedback loop in the climate system.

Chemical Weathering (add to pre-existing section in article (2.2.2))
There are many different feedback loops that involve chemical weathering and climate. Different factors can cause amounts of weathering to increase or decrease, which consequently prompts different responses from other systems, ultimately affecting climate.

In the carbon cycle, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to an increase in temperature due to the greenhouse effect. An increase in air temperature then causes an increase in atmospheric moisture, as warmer air can hold more water vapour, and this, in itself, is a positive feedback loop. However, this process turns into a negative feedback loop when examining subsequent effects. The increased amount of water vapour being held in the atmosphere allows for increased rainfall rates in some areas. Weathering occurs when exposed rocks interact with water and air, so an increase in the amount of precipitation causes and increase in weathering. The chemical aspect of weathering involves the consumption of carbonic acid to dissolve minerals in rocks. This process removes Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in turn lowering the temperature due to a lowered greenhouse effect.

In another study, the relation of temperature regulation through the interaction between atmospheric Carbon dioxide levels and weathering of silicate rocks, and the negative feedback loop it creates was examined. It is explained how, in the process operating over millions of years, temperature increases when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. Events like volcanic eruptions deposit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some of this carbon dioxide combines with water in the atmosphere to produce carbonic acid, which is brought to the surface as rain - combining with minerals at the surface, the most abundant of which being those belonging to silicates. For example, calcium silicates, when weathered by carbonic acid, produce calcium carbonate and silicon dioxide. This weathering process results in the production of carbonate compounds that cannot be broken down by water. The products are carried by water into the ocean and eventually settle, becoming buried in marine sediment. Through seafloor spreading, the sediments are incorporated into the mantle through subduction, overall resulting in decreased atmospheric carbon dioxide and therefore decreased temperature.

Net Primary Productivity & Chemical Weathering Feedback
Another possible set of reactions in a weathering-climate feedback loop involves plant evolution, carbon dioxide and temperature. Studies demonstrate this loop by comparing present day processes to those around the late Paleozoic. This loop, however, is a positive feedback loop and ties into the net primary productivity section. Decreased CO2 concentrations causes a decrease in temperature due to reduced greenhouse effect. Because of this, temperature of the leaf then decreases. This occurs because a cooler air temperature holds less water vapour, and so the leaf-to-air water vapour deficit is reduced. This, in turn, allows for stomatal conductance to increase, reducing the leaf temperature. A decrease in the leaf temperature results in the plant being more efficient at cooling, allowing them to evolve to have larger leaves - the cooler temperature allows for large leaves without the risk of lethal overheating. A larger Leaf Area Index (LAI) allows for the leaves to capture more incoming short wave radiation. With the growth of larger leaves comes the increase in overall size of the canopy, increasing surface area available for photosynthetic carbon gain. Additionally, trees use left over carbon (not used in their cellular respiration processes) to add to themselves, and further increase their total mass. Overall, in this scenario, plants become more productive and remove more atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus creating the positive feedback loop of continued cooling. Another result of the tree system becoming larger is that the larger, leafier canopy is able to recycle and introduce more water into the surrounding atmosphere by transpiration. This, in turn, increases rates of local rainfall, increasing weathering which decreases carbon dioxide concentration and thereby decreases temperature.

The increasing in size of plants leads into another feedback loop. These larger and more biologically productive plants require more resources to support their growth. In order to support this higher resource demand, the root system of the tree must adjust accordingly. Increased root biomass allows for the tree to meet said resource requirements, as they are able to uptake more nutrients/water to support tree growth. Studies have looked to the Phanerozoic in an attempt to explain how larger root systems increase weathering. It was mentioned how vascular plants with large root systems were capable of weathering rocks. Within the large root systems are vast majorities of rootlet systems that allow for root-mineral interface and weathering, as opposed to plants with smaller root systems. The increased weathering process ultimately removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the greenhouse effect and decreasing temperature.