User talk:Jreaso/sandbox

Article Selection
I chose the topic of Human Enhancement

The content on the page are all relevant to the topic at hand. However this topic does not seem like it is heavy on information. I feel that it needs more subheadings and more subtopics that can help expand the knowledge on Human Enhancement and all its worldly views as well as the technology that is out there. It seems to be written mostly neutral. The ethics part of this topic seems to be very dense. Each claim does not necessarily have a citation. For example, "Some believe that the ability to enhance one's self would reflect the overall goal of human life: to improve fitness and survivability." This seems to give bias as well, so backing this statement up will help its credibility. Most of the citations are valid, some of them are just missing access dates or URLs.

Sources I want to look into to help with the WikiProject:  =References=

Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement

David DeGrazia; Enhancement Technologies and Human Identity

Defending human enhancement technologies: unveiling normativity

Truly Human Enhancement : A Philosophical Defense of Limits

Ethics
"Human enhancement needs to be reframed by fully acknowledging the “visionary” nature of the discussed technoscientific developments, i.e. their role as future visions and imagined scenarios which, at the same time, act in the present, influencing research agendas, the allocation of resources and even regulatory frameworks."

Article Evaluation
Evaluating an article about climate change

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Everything in the subheadings all relate to the topic of climate change. It either discusses how climate change has affected it or how a certain topics contributes to climate change. Nothing really stood out to me because it was all mainly scientific facts.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' After looking at most of the resources, only have been cited as new resources from the past two years. Since the study of climate change has been a very interesting topic for the past few years now as so many evidence have been coming out about it, I would expect fairly recent edits. Also since it is also a very political topic as well, I believe this should be discussed that some believe this as a controversy rather than the truth.

What else could be improved?

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' The article is mostly neutral, but like I said it should also show the other side of climate change and how some may not totally believe it but as of right now, I think its good to say that these facts are good enough to understand the concept of climate change.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Expressed this in the previous question.

'''Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' The links work and they definitely support the claim in the article.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' Each fact generally has a reference and they seem to be from neutral resources. Since this page is basically talking about what climate change is, then it mainly contains facts and is not generally biased.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the talk page, there is one discussion about global warming vs. climate change and how these terms are basically interchangeable. This is really interesting because the way I was taught was that climate change is causing global warming. I would definitely have to gather my resources on this in order to back my belief.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' The article is rated a B-class and was definitely part of multiple WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is very factual - everything on here is black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreaso (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jreaso's Peer Review
Human Enhancement Ethics Draft

-Overall I feel like this section focuses more on the criticism maybe add some more about how human enhancement can be beneficial.

-I believe some of the statements lack a source.

~For Ex: Neuromarketing statement by Zack Lynch (3rd paragraph) needs a source.

-This section is written very nicely but I feel like a different approach to it would really capture the "ethics" voice of it

~Maybe start off with why people seek to have human enhancements

~Then paragraph by paragraph present the issues that give rise to the different ethical issues.

-The length of the section is a good length for the topic

-Reliable sources are used

Ndamargi (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)