User:Rudie014/sandbox


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Some of the facts in the introduction paragraph could be made stronger with a strong reference
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything seemed pretty relevant to me. The subtitles help organize the article in a way that makes sense.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Obviously this article is assuming that climate change is a real phenomenon. The article doesn't address other viewpoints that believe climate change is not real. That makes the article seem bias.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The information seems to unanimously come from journal articles. Some of the journals are specifically about climate change, so again these journals are obviously going to be biased about climate change actually happening. However, these journals are where the articles about climate change get published, so even if they may be biased, I still believe they are the best possible source for this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The whole article assumes the viewpoint that climate change is a real thing. They don't ever mention the fact that some people don't believe in climate change.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * The links I tested work. I could not find any close paraphrasing or plagiarism, but I only checked a couple of articles.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Some of the figures could be updated with new information.
 * Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?
 * It might be semi-protected because it is a controversial topic. Being semi-protected may prevent people from editing the article to include bias information or opinions. I think this might be a good thing. Any Wikipedia user who has had an account for more than 4 days can still edit the article, but it protects the content from people who may be trying to include their opinion.
 * 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?
 * Wikipedia users appear to be discussing protection policies. Since this is such a "high-conflict issue", Wikipedia gives it a poor quality rating.