User:Waffles82/sandbox

= Article Evaluation = Article: Biological pollution


 * Article does not seem to be written with confidence; author uses words such as "may" and "generally"
 * There are multiple grammatical errors
 * Lead section is fragmented and not very detailed - could use more information and content overall
 * Citations are used somewhat frequently in the lead, but not in the remainder of the article - more sources should be cited in order to make the article more reliable and the reference section more developed

= Article Selection = Article 1: Freshwater biology

This article has information that seems accurate and relevant to the topic; it is just limited. Freshwater biology is a pretty broad topic. The article could definitely be improved upon by adding more content and detail. For example, it could be discussed how freshwater biology is used to study the effects of climate change. Because it is such a broad topic, there is also lots of room for the use of more sources and citations. There are spelling mistakes present ('te' not 'the').

Article 2: Limnetic zone

This article is really lacking in citations. The information that is there is not cited and the overall ratio between information and citations is lacking. The reference list is very small and could be expanded. The one source that is referenced is also not considered a good source. In general, more research can be done to support the topic.

Article 3: Temperate forest

This article is also really lacking in citations. There is information in the article that should definitely be cited that is not. The author also directly quotes another author, in which their work is not linked to or referenced. If direct quotes are going to be used, then they should be cited. Generally though it is best to summarize another author's conclusions or findings in your own words. The two sources that are cited are not considered good sources. There is also a poor tone in some areas of the article, with statements such as "as the name implies...", which is not neutral. Also the "name" did not imply the meaning at all, so this was unclear.

= Adding Citations = Article: Limnetic zone

The limnetic zone is the open and well-lit area of a freestanding body of fresh water, such as a lake or pond. It is the most photosynthetically active zone since it is the primary habitat for planktonic species.

= Bibliography = Sources that could be helpful in writing this article:


 * "Summer zooplankton dynamics in the limnetic and littoral zones of a humic acid lake", KE Havens
 * Discusses photosynthesis in the limnetic zone
 * "Ecology and role of zooplankton in the fishery of Lake Naivasha", KM Mavuti


 * "Environmental gradients and the horizontal distribution of microcrustaceans in lakes", EA Smiley & AJ Tessier
 * "Fish distribution in limnetic areas of Lake Okeechobee, Florida", LA Bull et al.
 * "Food Web Interactions in Lakes", LB Crowder et al.
 * Discusses the importance of the limnetic zone in lake food webs

= Copyedit an Article = Article to edit: Temperate forest

I edited the language of the information under the "Coniferous" subheading.

Original: Evergreen forests, in contrast, are dominated by coniferous needle-leafed trees such as pine or fir. Evergreen forests are usually in more moderate regions. One notable exception to this rule is boreal forests, which are found closer to the arctic regions.

Edit: Coniferous forests are composed of needle-leaved evergreen trees, such as pine or fir. Evergreen forests are typically found in regions with moderate climates. Boreal forests, however, are an exception as they are found in subarctic regions.

= Limnetic Zone (Original) =

The limnetic zone is the well-lit, open surface waters in a lake away from the shore. The vegetation of the littoral zone surrounds this expanse of open water and it is above the profundal zone. This is the main photosynthetic body of the lake. This zone produces the oxygen and food that support the lake's consumers.

It can be defined as the lighted surface waters in the area where the lake bottom is too deep and unlit to support rooted aquatic plants. This area is occupied by a variety of phytoplankton, consisting of algae and cyanobacteria, as well as zooplankton, small crustaceans, and fish. Most photosynthesis takes place in this part of the lake.

= Limnetic Zone (My Draft) =

The limnetic zone is the open and well-lit area of a freestanding body of fresh water, such as a lake or pond. Not included in this area is the littoral zone, which is the shallow, near-shore area of the water body. Together, these two zones comprise the photic zone.

There are two main sources of oxygen to the photic zone: atmospheric mixing and photosynthesis. Unlike the profundal zone, the limnetic zone is the layer that receives sufficient sunlight, allowing for photosynthesis. For this reason, it is often simply referred to as the photic zone. The limnetic zone is the most photosynthetically-active zone of a lake since it is the primary habitat for planktonic species. Because phytoplankton populations are densest here, it is the zone most heavily responsible for oxygen production within the aquatic ecosystem.

Limnetic communities are quite complex. Zooplankton populations often consist of copepods, cladocerans, and rotifers occurring in the open water of lakes. Most limnetic communities will consist of one dominant species of copepod, one dominant cladoceran, and one dominant rotifer. Zooplankters are able to move more freely through the limnetic zone than in the littoral zone, both vertically and horizontally. This is because the bottom of a lake is richer in debris and substrates that provide habitat niches. A limnetic zooplankton population will usually consist of two to four species, each in a different genus.

In addition to zooplankton, organisms in the limnetic zone include insects and fish. Many species of freshwater fish live in the limnetic zone because of the abundance of food, though these species often transition to the littoral zone as well.

= Peer Review =

Soil Acidification - Selaginellaa
This is a great start to a draft for soil acidification. You took the original content and managed to rewrite it in your own words in an understandable manner. You also added more detail to support the current information and added some more sources, which is great. These sources are also reliable, so the information already seems much more credible. I would suggest continuing to add more detail to your draft, especially about the soil itself and what its acidification can result in (I am sure you will get to this). I would also eventually change the headings of the article sections to be more relevant. Overall, this is a great start like I said!

Note: This review was also posted to the user's talk page.

Michigan Basin - 8fries
Your current article contributions look great and will add a lot of much-needed detail to this article. Your information is very relevant to the topic and is organized nicely. I would just continue to work on adding more detail under each heading, citing your sources as you find them in your research, and formatting your information into complete paragraphs. Great work so far!

Note: This review was also posted to the user's talk page.

= Reflective Essay = During the article evaluation process, I learned that there is a lot of room for improvement in a large number of Wikipedia articles. For the most part, you always assume that Wikipedia has all of the information and answers that you need. Upon actual inspection, I learned that a lot of key information required in understanding certain subjects was missing, and in addition, there were clear issues with bias, tone, structure, citing, and more. With my chosen article specifically, I initially noticed that it was quite short, so I intended to add more information to lengthen it. However, I think a main concern with the article was its poor sentence structure and grammar. I just felt like it could be worded better to make it easier to understand. Another main concern was the lack of citations, let alone ones that were credible. I decided that these issues would be most important to focus on and that overall, more detail, better sentence structure, and the use of credible citations would greatly improve the article.

I decided to take the original article's information and rewrite it so that it was simpler and easier to understand. I changed the structure of each sentence so that the information actually made more sense. I thought that this was especially critical because at the end of the day, it is important that the general audience understands what they are reading. I researched my topic (limnetic zone) extensively to find useful pieces of information that could provide the article with more detail. While doing this, I was able to find reliable sources that could be used to cite previously existing information, ultimately making it more credible. This is obviously important to ensure the reader that they are receiving completely accurate and trustworthy information. With these edits, the quality of the article has already improved.

Our class did do the peer review process, which involved providing two classmates with advice on their own chosen articles, including suggestions for improvement. In my reviews, I would start out with stating what I found was most helpful with their edits. I tended to focus on emphasizing the importance of detail in information, making sure that the information was written with the audience in mind, ensuring that the overall structure and organization of the article allowed for easy navigation, and that reliable sources were cited where necessary. Upon reviewing my article, one of my peers focused on similar qualities of an article that I find important. This included the general standard of writing as well as grammar. The user eventually recommended that I continue to add more information about what organisms live in the limnetic zone as well as a further description of the region's habitat. I found this recommendation to be very useful in helping me further develop my article and I will continue to keep this suggestion in mind throughout my writing.

I have not yet received any feedback from other Wikipedia editors since I have not yet made my edits public. I actually do look forward to the possibility of receiving feedback when I do post my edits to the original article, however. If I did receive feedback I would be very appreciative that someone took the time to help me improve my writing. It is important that readers approve of the article that I post because at the end of the day, this article is written for them. It is crucial that the final product be as beneficial to the public as possible.

I think the biggest thing I learned about the Wikipedia process is that it is much more complicated than it seems. All of the individual steps taken to compose a Wikipedia-quality article are fairly simple, but there are so many things to consider overall. I gained more respect for those that contribute to Wikipedia because it is much more than just writing whatever you want. It is an in-depth process that requires a lot of work. This mostly applies to higher quality articles, though. It was therefore confirmed to me that Wikipedia is of course not a completely reliable source. Many stub articles reminded me of the importance of citing my work as well as making sure that the information I use comes from credible sources only. I also just learned how to make my writing more concise and reader-friendly. This assignment is different than any other assignment that I have done because with Wikipedia, my writing is made available to the public. A much, much larger audience has access to my work. I would say that this experience can vastly improve one's confidence with writing, as it definitely improved mine. Wikipedia is also super easy for the public to access and navigate, so it is a great platform to help improve people's understanding of many topics. Specifically, Wikipedia can give readers an opportunity to gain basic knowledge of global change, ecosystems, and the earth system, which is the purpose of our course's participation in this encyclopedia. It is important for people to understand features of the world in which they live, and this can be made possible by the contributions of those with a greater comprehension of the earth system.

= References =