User talk:Timng418/sandbox

Assignment 1
A critique on the Wikipedia article Heterotroph Timng418 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

In general the article is pretty well done, with most of the facts presented neutrally. However there are some specific claims in the article with no backing or source for which the claim comes from, leading me to assume it isn't properly presented and might be an insertion that isn't necessary to the overall article. Timng418 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

One specific instance comes from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article. It states that the term heterotroph is being used in a multitude of fields and it gives and example of ecology's usage of the term to describe the food chain. This isn't so much a fact than it is more like trivia. It presents itself not for the explicit purpose to inform the reader of a fact, but give the reader a novel trivia that isn't necessary at all. It's not even sourced in the article. This could mean that this last sentence was more likely added by someone else than the principal author or editor of the first paragraph. Timng418 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Another blemish to the article is the following 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and the first paragraph of the Ecology section have no sources at all. The 2nd and 3rd paragraph are fundamentally presented as neutral information and they are factually correct, but the lack of a proper source to verify them leads to a weaker statement on what diversity exists for heterotrophs and how they are related to autotrophs. The lack of information presented leads me to believe that if there was a academic source used, the details on chemo- and photoheterotrophs would be expounded upon much more so than what is present. What is present however is a claim that has little detail and deserves a broader viewpoint that comes with multiple references to frame the claim into an educated statement (a counter-argument is that those details should be left in their own articles, but those articles themselves aren't the best resource as they aren't the scholarly authority on the matter). It however winds up as an independent statement that is clearly from a singular viewpoint instead of a consensus. Timng418 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2: Eutrophication Article (High Notability)
The article on Eutrophication on Wikipedia highly deserves improvement with it being a highly notable piece. It has a wealth of sources that are very reliable. These sources come from reputable journal articles and scientific authorities on the subject matter; Ecological Society of America, Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (which is highly peer-reviewed and a regularly updated encyclopedia), and Science Magazine (the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) are some of these reliable sources used. Its sources are also highly independent of the subject and are published for the explicit purpose of academics and the pursuit to fill the gaps in known knowledge. Its sources also significantly cover the topic being discussed or stated in the article. One example is the article stating that the measure of human activity in watersheds correlates to the nitrogen transport in resulting nonpoint source pollution. The statement is then properly sourced to a paper that's main coverage is about how humans influence the diffusion of nitrogen into a major ocean. Timng418 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Though as with any article, it has its flaws and has areas that can be drastically improved. In regards specifically to the topic of high nutrient runoffs in the article, the point sources are stated but defined with little detail with no effort to expound upon and refer to reliable sources. It has barely any examples aside from the box to the right and those examples are specific to a paper. There needs to be an increase of generalized and neutral examples of point sources of nutrient runoffs such that the statement can justify why point sources are easily regulated. Without multiple well-sourced examples to back this, the topic fails to be persuasive. The Point source pollution Wikipedia article is also woefully lacking depth and may attribute to the level of detail present in the Eutrophication article. Timng418 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A better definition can be found and sourced to the United State's own definition of point sources. My take into improving the point sources topic is to find and collate information from more reliable, neutral sources. I plan to use these sources to allow me to cite reliable and general definitions of point sources and make sure they trace back to eutrophication as a topic. It is also my intent to find sources like the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration page categorizing point sources, while also getting international definitions to better suit the international usage of the site. I plan to add specific and relevant examples to eutrophication to enhance the definiton. Timng418 (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)