User:VicBlake/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Notes

• Some relevant information
• Proposes that surface drying/ deforestation/ excessive grazing (etc.) impact climate change; rather than global warming causing these land surface changes
• Article references range from 2006 to 2016 (with the exception of one that was dated 1975)
• The Land surface effects on climate overview is brief and vague
• The second sentence is incomplete; it did not identify the significant role of deforestation and exploitation of natural landscapes
• Deforestation is not made a link the first time it is introduced in the article
• No referencing in information stated under the subheadings: Orographic lift and Rain shadow
• The information needs to be elaborated on to develop a better understanding
• The article is neutral: references the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and papers published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences before paraphrasing the information; the article does not draw conclusions or personal ideas
• The view points appear to be underrepresented

Article Selection

Urban Climate

The article's content is relevant to the topic: it incorporates subtopics such as temperature, precipitation, wind and humidity,and how they contribute to an urban climate. However, each section lacks substantial detail (i.e. one to two sentences), making it difficult to generate strong points. The article is written neutrally but each claim did not have a citation. There are only three in-text citations/ references: two references were used for one sentence in the introduction and one for a sentence in the temperature subsection. Many claims were made throughout the article, especially in the different subtopic sections. For instance, "Building materials have a lower specific heat capacity (the amount of energy that will heat a kilogram of a material by 1 °C) than grass and trees—the specific heat capacity of concrete is 800 Joules/kg whereas for soil it can be 2000 Joules/kg, so concrete heats up more quickly in the day, warming the air around it." This is a very specific claim that would have came from a source of some kind which was not referenced at all. Two of the citations are from peer-reviewed journals and one is from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, so they are reliable sources of information but the article requires more referencing for the information proposed. The Talk page only had one comment that was mostly positive, but they did mention the need for more referencing material.

Hydrosphere

The article's content is relevant to the topic: it discusses (elaborately) about the water cycle and less extensively on recharging reservoirs and specific fresh water availability. The article was written neutrally. Some claims are accounted for in the reference section, but there could be improvement. There were six referenced sources, and some of them seemed unreliable: some were reports and others were general websites. They should have incorporated more peer reviewed articles, books and primary source information.

Drawdown

The introduction is the most substantial section of the entire page. It lacks detailed information and subsections [there is only one subsection (Effects)]. The information provided is neutral. There is only one reference which leads to the Utrecht University website; it is not a reliable citation/ reference.

Source List Compilation

1. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.859
2. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281987%29026%3C0427%3ACOCAUR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140196306000942

Add Citation/ Copy-edit/ Finalizing Topic

Add Citation

The following citation was added to the article: "Better understanding of urban temperature and water vapor contributions and/ or loss will reveal the reasons for lower relative humidity within cities, especially since it is dependent on temperature changes."

Copy-edit

The copy-edit exercise was conducted on the Urban Climate article (click the link and check the view history tab). Minor edits were made such as: sentence reconstruction, citation edits and removal of unnecessary phrasing.

Finalizing Topic

I have decided to improve the Urban Climate article.

Vic's Peer-Review

Heat Wave

Hi KHorton98,

What you have so far is supported by reliable sources and consists of a neutral tone. Moving forward it may be wise to integrate multiple sources within a given paragraph, rather than producing a paragraph for each source material. This will not only balance your coverage but improve the dynamics of your content. It is also worth mentioning that transition words will help to connect your ideas better and improve the overall structure. VicBlake (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Polar Ecology

Hi ATekatch,

Your draft is well organized, with a neutral tone and utilizes reliable sources. I liked how you had different subheadings to differentiate between the cause, ecology and history of Freshets. It may be wise to reconsider the chronology of the subheadings (i.e. stating the history before going into the ecology section). I also liked that you used primary and secondary sources to support your statements. Moving forward, if you choose to keep your information as jot points, ensure not to include periods (punctuation)-- jot points do not have sentence format. This can be easily corrected by increasing the number of points or creating a paragraph. Overall a great start! VicBlake (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Reflective Essay

Critiquing Articles

During the article evaluation process I learned that 'Start' and 'Stub' quality rated articles are not reliable since they don't provide enough background on the given topic, and so they are great material to improve. Articles with high quality ratings share common components, they include: having a detailed lead section, a clear structure, balanced content, neutral tone and reliable sources. The lead should provide a clear overview of the main concepts of the overall article, and organizing the article content chronologically using subheadings, headings and alike will improve the structure. Ensuring that important viewpoints carry more weight and maintaining a unbiased tone will increase the reliability of the article. Lastly, it is extremely important that the article incorporates a combination of primary and secondary reliable sources as often as possible. I considered these common components when critiquing the Urban Climate article by making brief notes on its structure, content, reliability of its sources and the neutrality of the writing. After analyzing the entire article, I decided that improving a subsection of the topic would be the most effective approach. Since I decided to focus on a particular aspect of the article it made it less difficult deciding what information to include, but more challenging to find specific source material.

Contributions

Below are a couple edits made to the Urban Climate article:

(1) The urban heat island effect tends to be stronger in winter because the colder air above the city is less able to rise by [[convection]] to allow the hot air inside the city to escape into the atmosphere. The effect is greater at night for the some reason.

(2) Better understanding of urban temperature and water vapor contributions and/ or loss will reveal the reasons for lower relative humidity within cities, especially since it is dependent on temperature changes.

Other edits included sentence reconstruction, and citing information. There is still lots of room for improvement but these edits are a valuable addition to the article because they improve the structure and flow of the information. The section removed in (1) eliminated the bias tone, and it also worth mentioning that the sentence was incomplete and lacked any reliable citation to support the claim. (2) was added to the humidity subsection and cited accordingly to clarify the existing content. The article is still in need of improvement, but it is a little better than its earlier versions.

Peer Review

The peer review process focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of the article , where we make note of what the article accomplished well and what can be improved. The five components mentioned earlier in Critiquing Articles (i.e. clear lead section and structure, balanced coverage, neutral content and reliable sources) are the same criteria used when conducting a peer review. I reviewed two of my peers contributions to existing articles. There were as follows:

Heat Wave

Hi KHorton98,

What you have so far is supported by reliable sources and consists of a neutral tone. Moving forward it may be wise to integrate multiple sources within a given paragraph, rather than producing a paragraph for each source material. This will not only balance your coverage but improve the dynamics of your content. It is also worth mentioning that transition words will help to connect your ideas better and improve the overall structure. VicBlake (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Polar Ecology

Hi ATekatch,

Your draft is well organized, with a neutral tone and utilizes reliable sources. I liked how you had different subheadings to differentiate between the cause, ecology and history of Freshets. It may be wise to reconsider the chronology of the subheadings (i.e. stating the history before going into the ecology section). I also liked that you used primary and secondary sources to support your statements. Moving forward, if you choose to keep your information as jot points, ensure not to include periods (punctuation)-- jot points do not have sentence format. This can be easily corrected by increasing the number of points or creating a paragraph. Overall a great start! VicBlake (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My peers made no recommendations on what I should change on the articles I chose.

Feedback

I did not receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors.

Wikipedia in General

I learned that Wikipedia provides people with summarized information on many topic, and they work collaboratively to ensure articles abide by five major elements (i.e. clear lead section and structure, balanced coverage, neutral content and reliable sources). The Wikipedia assignment compares to other scientific writing assignments I have done in biology and environmental sciences. Like my other writing assignments, there is a focus on presenting the facts and ensuring to maintain a neutral tone throughout the paper; however, unlike Wikipedia articles these assignments typically consider a thesis and an objective. When professionals contribute to Wikipedia articles it can increase the reliability and accuracy of the information presented. This can improve the public's understanding of our field and/ or the topic being analyzed.