Questions to keep in mind for the "Climate change" article:
1.Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
The 2nd paragraph under the intro doesn’t have an attached reference, although the proxies it mentions get proper reference later. This would be under “Physical evidence”, reference #71.
2.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything seems to be relevant. I’m surprised no politics were touched upon, but it looks like discussion over the fact was placed in the “Global warming” entry on Wikipedia.
3.Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article’s neutral, with no strong wording pointing towards one side or the other. Around reference #9, the words “scientists generally define…”
4.Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The information comes from NASA’s website and a multitude of scholarly articles. Neither of these types of sources are biased.
5.Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
I feel like “Internal forcing mechanisms” section may be on the short side, but then again, links to the broader concepts they represent (like Thermohaline circulation) get linked.
6.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
From the first couple I checked, they were in working order and didn’t reveal any sort of plagiarism. However, when I checked reference #49, the article it links to is no longer found on the host website.
7.Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
No info looks out of date, although it seems like a lot of information about ice cores gets spread across the entire article. Perhaps putting that info under the actual “Ice cores” section would be more appropriate than putting snippets elsewhere like under the “Temperature measurements and proxies” section.
8.Climate Change is a semi-protected article on Wikipedia. Why do you think this is? Is it a good or a bad thing?
Since climate change is such a polarizing topic, I can see why it’s a semi-protected article. It’s an issue of presenting factual evidence, which is backed by most scientists, and protecting it from those trying to defame it as a hoax.
 | This is a user sandbox of JuanL0pez97. 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. |