User:Golda027/sandbox

Climate Change

Especially regarding the first few sections, I do not feel like everything is cited completely. With a topic so controversial as climate change, I feel that just about everything should be cited to decrease the level of skepticism. I thought that just about all of the topics were relevant and very informative for the topic. Pollen analysis seemed a little off to me though in regards to evidence. The article was neutral, or maybe slightly biased towards the recognition that climate change is happening. However, if you're citing reasons for why it is happening, it is likely that you already believe it to be true. As so, the sources cited may be slightly biased for climate change, as multiple sources were from conventions for improving the science related to climate change. It would probably be a good idea to include issues that skeptics pose, and what proof is for or against these alternative viewpoints. The citation links I clicked all looked good! A majority of the citations were around 10 years old, which I would say is pretty recent. I think that Climate Change is semi-protected because it can be a controversial topic, especially in the political climate that we live in now. This is probably a good thing so that it doesn't go deleted completely by our president, or the information it contains becomes entirely skewed. The talk page showed that others thought that more citations were necessary, as well as just more information to back up claims in smaller paragraphs.

Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity

Nearly every sentence in this article had a citation, and the sentence structure overall was well put together. Everything in this article is relevant to the topic, I think a few subheadings could even be added to this article. I think the article was very neutral and included points that may not have been solely in support of evidence for claims that climate change affects plant diversity. The sources also appear to be neutral. The data that a majority have collected and the claims based off of the analysis came from empirical evidence via observation. Not much analysis was necessary. "Higher level changes" did not contain a lot of relevant information. If more examples from papers were used, or if the author included links to other Wikipedia pages, this section may have proved to be more useful. The links seemed to work just fine! Just about all of the sources were from year 2000+. I did see an article that was cited from 1998. A 20 year old source probably isn't the greatest, as it is likely that a more recent paper has been written to support this fact. There was nothing included in the Talk section for this article.