 | This is a user sandbox of DisM!ss. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
While you read, consider some questions (but don't feel limited to these): Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything on this page was relevant to the topic of climate change.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The climate change page is simply providing data about global climate change. The page does not make any claims to support or refute climate change.
Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Many of the sources are government based and articles published from renowned science journals. The sources are factual based and not influenced by a certain bias.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It would be beneficial to have a section on this page that illustrates what happens in the presence of climate change. The article provides a lot of physical evidence for climate change, but does not say how climate change effects ecosystems.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The citations I checked work and there does not seem to be close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the climate change article.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There are a handful of articles that are from before 2000 whose data may no longer be relevant.
Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing? Climate change is semi-protected because if it was not it would allow unregistered users to edit the article. This would allow people to add their own biases into the topic.
Check the "talk" page of the articles - what is the Wikipedia community discussing when it comes to representing these issues? How is the article ranked on Wikipedia's quality scale? This Climate Change article is evaluated at being B-class. This means that readers may not be completely satisfied with the amount of information provided by this article alone.
for the effects of climate change on biodiversity: All the facts in the article have reliable sources cited to support the claims made. The article does not go off on a tangent. The article does not show a bias in any political or social way. The page is very limited depth on the topic. There is a lot the author(s) could expand or elaborate on. The citations are from peer reviewed sources that are unbiased. I think the view points are well balanced with nothing being over or under represented. The links in the citations don't always work some are just links to where you can buy a copy of the articles. I think the article is semi-protected to prevent people changing the information or deleting it. People may want to change this information to fit their biases or claim climate change is a hoax. I think it is good that this type of action is prevented.
The article is too short and has a poor grade not being useful or in depth enough to be an informative article.