User:Domixox/sandbox

Article Evaluation - Tornado climatology

1. The articles clearly explains the title. It includes the examples, the environment needed for tornados to form, where tornados are most common (the USA). It mentions every continent apart from Antartica the frequency of tornados, including subsections of more prevalent countries such as the US and Canada.
2. The information is mostly dated but there are some examples of 2018 sources. There is reference to long term treads which only go up to 2011, but this could be due to census data or data not yet released. Overall there seems to be a lot of information around 1970 to 2000 but less closer to the present.
3. To improve this article there could be more current references to examples of tornado events and reference to climate change, how it is increasing the number of tornados. However, this articles is very consistent and clearly explaining the title of question. I think there should be information of who named and discovered the science behind tornados.
4. The article is very neutral, it clearly talks about the facts and event that occurred, along with the science of how tornados form.
5. There is more information written about the US than most other countries even though they are more prepared and there is a smaller mortality rate from tornados than developing countries, this should slight bias.
6. Some citations are missing but all the citations work and so do the references.
7. There are all relevant to the article and help back up the legitimacy of the information. some references come from news reports of tornado events, most are peer reviewed literature and scientific organisations such as the "Hurricane Research Division".

Article selection

Soil acidification

1. The content is relevant to the topic, however it is slightly vague and more scientific data could be added and cited to improve the quality of the work. Could also meant the why acidification is happen, does it have any reference to climate change.
2. Yes, the article is written neutrally as it just regurgitated the information and facts, it does not hold a specific point of view.
3. No, there are very few citations, but as the information is factual that is expected.
4. The few references that are present are reliable from peer reviewed sources.