User:Seder043/sandbox

Climate Change 1. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is unbiased and the claims are supported by fact and are not biased toward a particular position.

2. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? In the references section, there are a lot of peer reviewed articles cited--which is good/reliable. However, just upon looking at the first paragraph, not everything is cited; it is possible these facts are not cited since they are somewhat general knowledge--even though I would feel inclined to include more citations. Source number 32 was found to be inappropriately sourced.

Ecology 1. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? I checked the first few sources and they opened up to a link that worked. Nothing screamed plagiarism to me.

2. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Although the references that are cited appear to be appropriate and reliable, I feel it has the same issue as the climate change page since it does not cite many statements--such as this sentence: "For example, the Circles of Sustainability approach treats ecology as more than the environment 'out there'. It is not treated as separate from humans." Since "Circles of Sustainability" is not common knowledge by any mean, I do not know why this is not cited. There is also many historical facts which are not supported.

Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity 1. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most information comes from peer-reviewed articles, while other sources are from universities and environmental departments. Even though not all sources are from journals, they sources appear to be neutral and no bias was noted. Seder043 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)