User talk:Kh006916/sandbox

1) Article Evaluation:

-Content:

-Is the material organized and focused? The article could be organized better. The causes and triggers should be one section. The Impact section can be organized better. Also there is two sections about the economic value of coral reefs which should be combined into two. -Is the presentation understandable? yes -Does the article cover the topic comprehensively, partially, or it is an overview? It is an overview that needs more detail and clarification added. -What is the quality of evidence? The evidence is accurate for the most part. But there are outdated facts. The most recent fact they have is from 2017. Coral bleaching has gotten a lot worse and the facts need to be updated. -Does the article have references or is it just someones knowledge? Were assumptions made? There are 106 references and it does does not seem to be someones knowledge with no assumptions made. -How might the content be improved? There are a lot of run on sentences that need fixed. The sentences are also choppy so I am going to make it flow better.

2) Quality:

-Does the article have an introduction? Yes -Is the introduction understandable and does it summarize the articles main points? No, it only talks about the symbiotic relationship with the algae and mentions bleaching events which I will probably take out and add more of a summary of what coral bleaching means. -Are there several headings and subheadings? Yes. To many subheadings and it kind of looks sloppy. -Is there anything missing? A whole section about climate change needs to be added. Also there is missing information in the ocean chemistry that needs to be added and clarified. A section about the future of coral reefs is missing and what it means for humans. A section about bleaching solutions should be added as well. I also think that importance coral reefs have for the ecosystem should be its own section. -Are there images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes at the end? There are good pictures in this article and footnotes at the end. -Is the coverage neutral (unbiased)? Yes -Are facts emphasized? There is an emphasis on the facts in this article but they need to be updated to today's facts. -Are the references reliable sources? Why or Why not? A lot of them are reliable coming from an online journal. Some of the links tho brought me to websites with an article that were surrounded by a bunch of adds so I think those could be improved.