Evaluation 427 by Anon (session_user_id: df2ddd09c27a42b245aaf436851beced859a6664)

What is your overall decision about this article?  
Are the selection criteria for the stations well explained?   Or, if this project does not have to do with time series met. stations, are the premises of the project well thought out and explained?  Is it a topic of special interest?  (It doesn't have to be, but if it is, say so).  
Good stuff--I like it. My only "complaints" would be about formatting and creating paragraphs that would have made reading/understanding easier, and attention to detail, (such as writing "France" instead of "france"). One specific is that I suggest that when writing a decimal number less than 1.0, that you use a leading zero. For example, you used ".2" and that easily can be misread as "2" (not noticing the zero. I was taught always to use a leading zero, e.g., "0.2" so the meaning is clear. (Please accept that as a suggestion, not a complaint! How did you select your stations? Random (with good geographical dispersion)? BTW, your write-up says 41 stations, but the link shows only 40.
Are the conclusions of the report quantitatively supported by the data?  
Some of your conclusions are supported by the data, but I believe many are not. For example, I don't think your data supports, " Moors will get wetter, due to more evaporation, heavier clouds and therefore more rain and changing weather patterns from the oceans they neighbor." Same for your comments on glaciers. (I don't doubt that these things probably are true--just that they are not supported here.) I would want to see much more on what conclusions your data specifically supports.
Are the data stations well quality-controlled? 
I can't comment knowledgeably about this. It seems to me that stations that are indicated on the map with a black dot are missing data, but I don't know if that means "a lot" of data--or maybe I'm just wrong about this. Here is something from another student's submission: Filtering Process: Data for all stations was converted into an annual timeseries, averaging the monthly temperatures. Any year with missing monthly data was not included. For a station to be used in the analysis, it needed to have more than 25 acceptable years in the 20th Century and at least one observation after 1999. Only vegetation types with greater than 20 acceptable stations were analyzed. No filtering was done by rural/urban, elevation, or latitude/longitude.