2013 UTC Honestly it s not a bad article The problem isn t with the content it s with the way you sourced it Take the section What you re saying in there makes sense but you have made connections that the sources didn t make themselves If you wanted to talk about aging you d need a source that talks about aging as a source of climate change vulnerability in the Caribbean Your source merely gives information on age profiles Even if you had another source that connected aging with climate change vulnerability it would still create potential WP SYNTH problems for you to connect this a to the Caribbean and b to the age profile in Belize If you had a source that talked about aging in the context of climate change vulnerability in the Caribbean then it might be OK to add the statistics from the CIA factbook Might Some people would still challenge that as drawing original conclusions from sources Oh and by the way I would drop the human vulnerabilities just go with vulnerabilities It would change the focus only slightly but would make for a better article After all if you re going to talk about the threats to coral reefs you shouldn t need to separate out effects on humans from effects on non humans 22 17 3 April