User:Wjreed2/sandbox

Climate Change - The overall summary of climate change seemed to be lacking a few citations. There was only one citation in the first two paragraphs but a lot of facts about what climate change is. I like how the authors approach the subject of climate change, just pure facts. I think this article is neutral because it just list the true facts about climate change, its causes, and its effects. Perhaps I am biased because I think these facts are just the way it is but some people seem to think that these facts are disputable, which they are not, they are wrong. All of the links I used seemed to work, even the governmental ones! The talk page is kind of funny, all the hard core wikipedia editors arguing about section titles.

Ecology - Again, few citations in the very beginning of the article. There are a lot of facts it seems like but the citations aren't really present till after the overall summary paragraphs. This article appears to be neutral, there aren't really any controversial things about ecology other than how it relates to climate change. There was a mention of climate change in the ecology page but I think that it does a good job of talking about how ecology is a tool to study the affects of climate change. The sources appear to be good, they look like they are from peer reviewed journals, I'm not going to look at all of them.

Regional effects of global warming - I like how the regional effects are split up into different sections and there are pretty good sources for those effects, I don't think the sources from the EPA work. This article is pretty good, doesn't seem biased. I think these huge pages are pretty good because so many people can edit them and they just average out to a non biased article.