User:Quietforest/sandbox

Climate Change and Agriculture: Most of the links work. I am not overly impressed with the scienctificness of the literature used. Several of the things they cited are other wikipedia pages, that seems like a vicious cycle to me. They cited an international organization that acts on climate policies. They phrased a lot of the linkages between agriculture and climate change as certainties. This is not quite a neutral view although the science definitely supports their angle. I believe someone from an agricultural background would have been less likely to admit this link. Some of their phrases were real awkward and I would have reworded if possible.

Climate Change: They actually cited a peer reviewed article! But many of their links fall into the same categories of less desirable citations that I had noticed previously. Many of them are just web pages without much evidence of significant fact checking. This makes me a little nervous. I thought this one was a little better written. It appeared neutral and brought up many good points. Some of the terminology used was potentially out of date or inaccurate. I am not sure what a "forcing mechanism" is.

Regional Effects of Global Warming: Many of their links were not to active sites. They used some peer reviewed scientific literature. I thought that this article did a pretty good job of being neutrally written. Some of their citations were to National Geographic, this is not completely ideal. They broke down the impacts of climate change in many of the major areas on earth. I thought this was a pretty good article.