User:Jakebryanttaylor/sandbox

Climate Change

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
• Most facts have a source, but there are some full paragraphs that have no sources attached.
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
• Everything in the article was relevant, but the authors went VERY in depth about anything
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• I don't feel any bias coming from the article. The article just presents fact after fact about the prevalence of climate change, but it does not seem opinionated.
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
• Most references are peer-reviewed. They do not seem to include any sources that dispute the validity of climate change, so it may be slightly biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• It doesn't seem like there are any sources disputing the validity of the current theory of climate change.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
• I checked citations 9, 11, and 13 and all of the links worked. There didn't appear to be any close paraphrasing.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
• Some of the sources go back as late as the 1970s. I think sources from the 1970s are a little outdated for the current concept of climate change. Recent advances in combating climate change (sequestering) are underrepresented in the article.
• Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?
• I think this because climate change is such a disputed topic, Wikipedia had to protect the article from very bias editors. I think this is a good thing because the Climate Change article would not be viable if biased editors constantly changed the article.  
• 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?
• The Wikipedia community seems to be discussing certain facts that they want to apply to the article, and disputing certain sources. The page does not have a quality rating.

Climate Change and Agriculture

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
• Yes, each reference seems appropriate and reliable
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
• There is nothing really distracting in the article. It is very thorough like the climate change article.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• This article seems more neutral than the climate change article. There are no points in the article that seem overexpressd. There are a lot of sources from climate change specific websites that may be slightly biased
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
• Most of the articles are peer-reviewed articles. The sources are neutral for the most part.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• There doesn't seem to be any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. The article is very thorough.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
• The links to sources 27, 30, and 42 work. There is no close paraphrasing from these articles.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
• The sources in this article are more up-to-date than the climate change article. Most sources in this article are from the 2000's, and 2010's.
• 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?
• Most of the comments on the talk section are about formatting of the article. Some of the comments are disputing certain facts in the article, but most of these proposed changes seem minor.

Regional Effects on Global Warming

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
• There is a definite lack of sources in this article. Most of the sources used are reliable and from journal articles.
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
• Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. In this article, the authors go from region to region. Nothing is distracting.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• This article seems to be the most neutral of the three articles. None of the claims seem to be especially biased.
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
• The information, like the other two articles, come mostly from journal articles and websites about climate change. The sources that are climate change websites are possibly biased, but they are appropriate for an article about climate change.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• It would be nice if there were sections commenting on the anti-climate change viewpoints. This article is much shorter than the other two articles.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
• References 1, 3, and 5 worked. Reference 3 has slight close paraphrasing, but references 1, and 5 do not.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
• This article has references that are similar to climate change and agriculture. Most of the sources are from the 2000's and 2010's.
• 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?
• The comments in the talk section are very similar to the global warming and agriculture comments. Most comments are about formatting of the article and not the facts of the article.