User:Wylanz/sandbox

= Article Evaluation = The article being evaluated is Oil spill.

Content Evaluation
Everything in the article was relevant to the article topic. Relevant information was brought up during each stage of an oil spill. This included the beginning (sources), the middle (what happened and what the impacts were), and the end (cleanup and recovery attempts), among other facts spread throughout the article. Something that distracted me was that there were some long run-on sentences that broke the flow during some parts of the article.

Most of the information was up to date, although there were a few sources that were from the 1970s. These could probably be updated using more up-to-date information or studies. Based on what I read, I think that the human impact section was a little short, and more could be added to that.

Something that I believed could improve the article is the addition of smaller oil spills. The article mainly displays the larger, well known spills, but doesn't include smaller oil spills. I think that the addition of smaller oil spills would benefit the article because it could show the impact of oils spills on a smaller, more local scale. This could either complement or contrast the information on the larger oil spills, depending on the circumstances.

Tone Evaluation
I believe that the tone of the article is neutral. There doesn't seem to be any opinions or points being argue; The information is written in a factual manner. There did not appear to be any claims that seemed heavily biased toward a particular position.

There didn't seem to be any viewpoints that were over-represented. In terms of under-represented, I think that there could be more viewpoints coming from smaller oil spills. Also, the human impact viewpoint was a little under-represented.

Source Evaluation
I checked 15/80 citations. 3/15 did not work. For the links that worked, the source supported the claims made in the article.

Almost every fact was referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference; Some even had two different sources. There were 2 facts that had a "citation needed" note on them in the Human impact section. Also, there was a large chunk of information in the Cleanup and recovery section that didn't have a citation. The information came from a variety of sources. These included scholarly articles, newspaper articles, and random information websites, among others. For the most part, the tone in the sources that I check out were neutral.

Talk Page Evaluation
There were many different kinds of conversations going on behind the scenes. These include changes to specific examples (Deepwater Horizon), removal of chunks due to missing sources, and discussions about whether certain information should be added, among other subject matter. There are also long comment chains with disagreements (arguments) about whether or not the "Kuwaiti oil well fires were an oil spill".

The article is rated B-Class. It seems to be part of 3 WikiProjects. These are WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, and WikiProject Disaster Management.

We have not talked about oil spills in class.

= Article Selection =

Soft water
In general, the article's content is relevant to the topic. The article is written neutrally, meaning there is no bias towards the topic in either direction. Each claim does not have a citation, though I think some of them are fine without it because they are common knowledge (i.e. not anyone's intellectual property). There are a few citations. A couple are from journals while the others seem to be more information sites. These might need to be double checked to ensure unbiased, factual information. The article could be improved by adding more. The Wikipedia page for "Hard Water" is fairly long; I don't see why this one wouldn't have as much information.

Air stagnation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The article seems to be written in a neutral tone, but the the tone could be improved. Every claim in the article has a citation. The sources mainly come from journal articles, 3 of which come from the same one. A few of the citations are from "information" sites, and are only available to view in an archived page. I think this article could be improved by adding some examples. In addition, effects of air stagnation could be added, as it is correlated to poor air quality.

Air current
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The article is written in a neutral tone. Not every claim has a citation. There are only 4 sources for the whole article. The articles don't seem very reliable. I think that there could be larger ideas of air currents added, but care is needed when doing this. This is because it could touch other similar topics, like jet stream, polar vortex, and etc.

Hydrometeorology
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The article is written in a neutral tone. Many of the claims have a citation attached to it, but there are some that may need one as they may not be considered common knowledge. I checked all the sources, and only 3/11 seem reliable. The rest either didn't work or came from unreliable sources. One way I think the article could be improved is by including anthropogenic impacts or effects, since humans have influence over the water cycle and atmospheric composition.

= Adding Citations = Adding a citation for Air stagnation.

Human Impacts
Climate change brought on by increased anthropogenic activities have an adverse effect on the atmosphere and its weather patterns. The disruption of regulatory factors that control air stagnation could change (increase or decrease depending on location) the frequency at which it occurs.

= Copyedit an Article = Copyediting Air stagnation.

Before
Air stagnation is a phenomenon which occurs when an air mass remains over an area for an extended period.[1] Stagnation events strongly correlates with poor air quality. Due to light winds and lack of precipitation, pollutants cannot be cleared from the air, either gaseous (like ozone) or particulate (like soot or dust). Subsidence produced directly under the subtropical ridge can lead to a buildup of particulates in urban areas under the ridge, leading to widespread haze.[2] If the low level relative humidity rises towards 100% overnight, fog can form.[3] In the United States, the National Weather Service issues an Air Stagnation Advisory when these conditions are likely to occur.[4]

In the U.S., the numbers of stagnation days during winter and spring tend to be much smaller than those during summer and fall.[5] Spatial variations during winter and spring tend to be incoherent as well.[6]

After
Air stagnation is a phenomenon which occurs when an air mass remains over an area for an extended period of time.[1] Stagnation events correlates strongly with poor air quality. Due to light winds and a lack of precipitation, pollutants, both gaseous (such as ozone) and particulates (such as soot or dust), cannot be cleared from the air. Subsidence produced directly under the subtropical ridge can lead to a buildup of particulates in urban areas under the ridge, leading to widespread haze.[2] If the low level relative humidity level rises towards 100% overnight, fog can form.[3] In the United States, the National Weather Service issues an Air Stagnation Advisory when these conditions are likely to occur.[4]

In the U.S.,  the numbers of stagnation days during winter and spring tend to be much smaller than those during summer and fall  there tends to be fewer days considered stagnant during winter and spring than during summer and fall.[5] Spatial variations during winter and spring tend to be  incoherent  inconsistent as well.[6]

= Finalizing Article Topic = The article that I will be expanding on is the stub article, Plastic soup. I will be working with Danielle Liao on this project.

= Reflective Essay =

Critiquing Articles
I learned many things that I didn't know about Wikipedia writing. I learned that there are very specific things that going into writing an article. One of which is that Wikipedia doesn't really want us to use primary sources, although Professor Vincent said that for this assignment, it was acceptable. Also, Wikipedia is fairly strict on what kinds of images you can used in your article; They have to be allowed/regulated under certain conditions (copyright issues) for you to be able to use them on Wikipedia. I also learned that while evaluating articles, there "are" mistakes. Previously, when I read Wikipedia articles, it was usually to get an idea about a topic, but when I really evaluated it, I saw there were grammar mistakes and such. This makes sense because it's written by anyone, and people tend to make mistakes.

I went about critiquing the article I selected for this assignment using two main approaches. I looked at the amount of information present and the tone (passive, biased, etc.) of the article. For my chosen article, Plastic Soup, there wasn't much information on it, so I thought I could add stuff. I also noticed that the grammar was fair and had a fairly unbiased tone.

Summarizing Contributions
I haven't been adding to the article on Wikipedia as I don't really enjoy the platform, but I've been adding to it in another word processor, and will add to Wikipedia in the coming days. The main things that I changed about the article is the restructuring of some areas where it seemed a bit inconsistent. I feel like this was a valuable change because it makes the article easier to read, which is definitely necessary. Another thing I did was just add more information in general, as it didn't have too much to begin with. These were valuable additions because more information on a subject is usually better than less.

Peer Review
The peer review process is quite similar to reviewing articles in a previous task. I think that you have to keep in mind that these are your peers, while at the same time, treating them as any other Wikipedia writer. This is because you may hold back on your review as to not discourage or insult them, but I think it's a necessary thing to do. I unfortunately didn't do the peer review, but if I did, what I would look for are grammatical errors, tone of the article (passive, unbiased, etc.) and layout/design of the article.

I received one peer review, and the person noticed that I had not added my article yet. Due to this, he recommended some things that I could do once I do start writing/adding to the article. He noticed that there wasn't much on the topic, so he suggested some things that I could add, but I appreciate.

Feedback
I did not receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors. Though if I did, I wouldn't be offended if it was negative. I understand that everyone has a different way of writing and seeing the world, so I would take their feedback with this in mind. Also, if I had questions about their feedback, I wouldn't be afraid to ask because it's better to know how I could improve the article rather than not doing anything about it.

Wikipedia, in General
The main things I learned was that Wikipedia writing actually takes some effort to do. I never truly realized this because I never really thought about it before. Wikipedia has rules and regulations that I never really considered. For example, they don't want you to include primary source, which kind of makes sense because primary sources are typically not peer reviewed. I also learned about the types of images that you can and can't use. The images have to be found within a copyrighted source that Wikipedia has outlined.

In my opinion, a Wikipedia assignment isn't too much different than other assignments. They both include doing research by looking for/at reputable sources, and putting then in your own words, while citing/giving credit to the original author and their work. Also, tone needs to be considered for both writings. In short, I found that there isn't really much difference.

Wikipedia can be used to improve public understanding of our field by including more information on articles already on Wikipedia, as well as on potential articles. While doing the assignment (looking at/for articles, reviewing articles, etc.) I found many articles that were short/didn't have a lot of information on them. I think that if more people contributed to Wikipedia, in general, there would be more knowledge available, which is beneficial to everyone (though the articles should be reputable/unbiased). This is important because more knowledge in the world leads to more potential for solutions to the problems.

Specifically, Wikipedia could be used to improve public understanding of my chosen article, Plastic Soup, by informing people about it, and what it means. Plastic Soup is basically the pollution of bodies of water by plastic, which has the potential to impact all living organisms. This is an important topic to inform people about because in the modern world, the use of plastic is increasing, and as a result, more plastic is being dumped into oceans everyday. If more people knew about the impacts and potential solutions, maybe more people would/could do something about. With this in mind, the article should still be written in a passive tone, and avoid bias or opinions. The spreading of information is always a good thing, as long as it's explained objectively, as opposed to subjectively.

= Final Article (edits, formatting, etc.) = The article that I will be expanding on is the stub article, Plastic soup. I will be working with Danielle Liao on this article. Below is what I changed/added to the article. To see what the work that Danielle did, click here.

Plastic soup
Plastic soup is a term referring to pollution of the sea by plastics in general, ranging from large pieces of fishing gear that can entrap marine animals, to the microplastics and nanoplastics that result from the breakdown or photodegradation of plastic waste in on surface waters, rivers, or oceans.

History
The term was coined by Charles J. Moore in 1997, after he found patches of plastic pollution in the North Pacific Gyre between Hawaii and California. This Great Pacific Garbage Patch had previously been described in 1988 by scientists who used the term neuston plastic to describe " Tt he size fraction of plastic debris caught in nets designed to catch surface plankton (hereafter referred to as neuston plastic)", and acknowledged that earlier studies in the 1970s had shown that "neuston plastic is widespread, is most abundant in the central and western North Pacific, and is distributed by currents and winds".

Sources of plastic pollution
Danielle.

Notable sites
Danielle.

Impacts on wildlife
Plastics in any body of water poses risks to the well-being of all animals that interact with it. In water-dwelling species, there is risk of ingestion of all sizes of plastic. A 2012 study conducted by scientists in the Netherlands found that in a sample of 107 seals, there was an incidence rate of 11% for plastics in their stomachs. In the same study, they found a 0% incidence rate of plastics in their scat. It suggests that the seals can’t break down the plastics in their stomachs, and over time, accumulation of plastics can ultimately lead to death.

The impact of plastic pollution in bodies of water on birds varies depending on their feeding and breeding location. Traces of plastics have been found in the fat tissue and eggs of great shearwaters feeding and reproducing in bodies of water with plastic pollution. There was a positive correlation between the amount of trace plastics found in the fat tissues of these birds and time spent in polluted water; Indicating more time spent in the polluted waters resulted in higher traces of plastics found in their fat tissues and eggs.

Policies to reduce plastic pollution
Increasing concern on the impact of plastic pollution on marine environments has led to growth in environmental policies and programs to combat it. During the 2015 G7 Summit in Germany, The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) brought up the impacts of microplastics on marine environments. The results were talks of legal efforts worldwide to confront the rapid rate of plastics being dumped into bodies of water in both point and non-point sources.

A significant source of plastic into marine environments come from single-use plastic bags. Policies to reduce plastic bag usage began as early as 1991, and although some small-scale efforts have been made to further enforce and regulate these policies, there has been no large-scale efforts since then. In 2014, strategic policies to reduce plastic usage were initiated, but there have been no efforts to implement them.

= Plastic soup = Plastic soup is a term referring to pollution of the sea by plastics, ranging from large pieces of fishing gear that can entrap marine animals, to microplastics and nanoplastics that result from the breakdown or photodegradation of plastic waste on surface waters, rivers, or oceans.

History
  The term was coined by Charles J. Moore in 1997, after he found patches of plastic pollution in the North Pacific Gyre between Hawaii and California. This Great Pacific Garbage Patch had previously been described in 1988 by scientists who used the term neuston plastic to describe "The size fraction of plastic debris caught in nets designed to catch surface plankton (hereafter referred to as neuston plastic)", and acknowledged that earlier studies in the 1970s had shown that "neuston plastic is widespread, is most abundant in the central and western North Pacific, and is distributed by currents and winds".   The term is sometimes used to refer only to pollution by microplastics, pieces of plastic less than 5mm in size such as fibres shed from synthetic textiles in laundry: the British National Federation of Women's Institutes passed a resolution in 2017 headlined "End Plastic Soup" but concentrating on this aspect of pollution.

As of January 2019 the Oxford English Dictionary did not include the terms plastic soup, neuston plastic or neustonic plastic, but it defined the term microplastic (or micro-plastic) as "Extremely small pieces of plastic, manufactured as such (in the form of nurdles or microbeads) or resulting from the disposal and breakdown of plastic products and waste" and its illustrative quotations all relate to marine pollution, the earliest being a 1990 reference in the South African Journal of Science: "The mean frequency of micro-plastic particles increased from 491 m-1 of beach in 1984 to 678 m-1 in 1989".

Notable sites
Concentrations of plastic pollution in oceans have been reported to be in remote areas or the ocean. Plastic consumption started in the 1950’s and have accumulated since then. There are numerous examples worldwide where plastic pollution in oceans are prevalent and widespread. An infamous example includes the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” which is estimated that it carries around 100 million tons of waste. This area covers the Californian coast up to Hawaii and to Japan. The area is known to be “translucent” and are not detectable by satellite and can only be viewed from ships that are near it. It has also been reported that areas in the north Atlantic as well as “all five subtropical ocean gyres” all suffer from plastic soups. The garbage also has a tendency to go down to the ocean floor and not just on the surface. The seafloor beneath the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has also been reported to have 70% of its trash on the seafloor. This poses implications on all levels of the oceans, affecting the every marine life in the ocean.

Impacts on wildlife
Plastics in any body of water poses risks to the well-being of all animals that interact with it. In water-dwelling species, there is risk of ingestion of all sizes of plastic. A 2012 study conducted by scientists in the Netherlands found that in a sample of 107 seals, there was an incidence rate of 11% for plastics in their stomachs. In the same study, they found a 0% incidence rate of plastics in their scat. This suggests that the seals can’t break down the plastics in their stomachs, and over time, accumulation of plastics can ultimately lead to death.

The impact of plastic pollution in marine environments on birds varies depending on their feeding and breeding location. Traces of plastics have been found in the fat tissue and eggs of great shearwaters feeding and reproducing in environments with plastic pollution. There was a positive correlation between the amount of trace plastics found in the fat tissues of these birds and time spent in polluted water, indicating more time spent in the polluted waters resulted in higher traces of plastics in their fat tissues and eggs.

Policies to reduce plastic pollution
Increasing concern on the impact of plastic pollution on marine environments has led to growth in environmental policies and programs to combat it. During the 2015 G7 Summit in Germany, The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) brought up the impacts of microplastics on marine environments. The results were talks of legal efforts worldwide to confront the rapid rate of plastics being dumped into bodies of water in both point and non-point sources.

A significant source of plastic into marine environments come from single-use plastic bags. Policies to reduce plastic bag usage began as early as 1991, and although some small-scale efforts have been made to further enforce and regulate these policies, there has been no large-scale efforts since then. In 2014, strategic policies to reduce plastic usage were initiated, but no efforts have been made to implement them.

Advocacy
The Amsterdam-based Plastic Soup Foundation is an advocacy group which aims to raise awareness of the problem, educate people, and support the development of solutions.