" 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"