Talk:ClimateWorks Foundation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 February 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PR Course, Souljaslim808, Numbah9, Mmalin21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review - Ariel Ridley
This is a nice Wikipedia article! I enjoyed reading it, and learning more about the non-profit ClimateWorks Foundation.

Lead: I found the lead to be informative and concise. I would recommend possibly removing or relocating the following sentence to another section of the article: “The ClimateWorks foundation has hosted a discussion on "accelerating global climate action" at Climate Week NYC.” I think that this sentence is a little vague as is and modifying it to add more detail would make the overall lead too detail heavy. The Efforts section may be a good location for this sentence instead.

I like the facts box that is to the right of the lead. It posts general facts such as founder, location, website, and more, which makes for quick and easy access to basic information. Since the nonprofit website is located in this box, I would suggest possibly removing the Official Websites link under the External Links section, to eliminate any possible repetition.

Structure: I found the structure of the overall article to be simple, and easy to follow. The section headers are all necessary to the article, and each has adequate information underneath them. The content looks to be consistent and relevant. The sections all appear to be displayed in a good order.

References: At the time of this peer review, all internal and external links were working.

The following links are not leading to an accessible article:
 * "ClimateWorks Foundation Appoints New CEO; Julie Blunden, renewable energy industry veteran, to lead global climate and energy policy grantmaker; . Business Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni". (This source was corrected in class by professor McDowell) This source is also from Business Wire, so I would look into this more to make sure that it is not PR, and is appropriate for Wikipedia.


 * The following citation had an extra unrelated link associated with it, so I fixed the citation:
 * Eilperin, Juliet (November 4, 2017). "EPA's new science advisers add more industry experts, conservatives to the mix". The Washington Post.

The following statement in the article does not have a reference: "For instance, Chinese cement production contributes to nearly 5% of carbon dioxide globally."

Overall, this was a good article!

Ari2019 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review-mmalin21
Overall, I think this article provides a lot of information relevant to ClimateWorks that give a very comphrensive overview of the organization. I especially like the paragraph on funding, as it is presented in a very objective manner. However, much of this information needs to be clarified and explained so the reader can get a foundational sense of who this organization is/how it works.

Lead:
 * I think the clause "listed as one of the top 100 charities" could be made its own sentence somewhere else in the lead and allow the introductory sentence to stand on its own
 * I don't think we can say that ClimateWorks actually slows global warming, so I think that that sentence could be reframed to discuss their goal or ambition relating to global warming
 * I moved the last sentence to history because it fits as more of a historical event related to the company

History:
 * I added "and Packard" to the first sentence to clarify who financed the report
 * I would add more info on who Hal Harvey is/was
 * please clarify what “rest of world” means. Is it every other country not in US, China, India, Europe, and Latin America? Is it just those who need extra help in climate change policy?
 * A more condensed version of the original study can be put in history and expanded upon in another section
 * Condensed the paragraph on Julie Blunden

Efforts:
 * First sentence is confusing and is very long. Try dividing it into more digestible chunks
 * Clarify what ‘upgrading’ means in second sentence if possible
 * I split up the last sentences in the first paragraph so it would be clearer
 * Most of the second paragraph sounds very PR-y. For example “ClimateWorks Foundation is able to offer and design the best techniques to halt global warming” is a subjective sentence and sounds like you’re advertising for their services

Partnerships/Funding
 * Don’t rely so heavily on listing, instead try and mention each organization once with the information relevant to ClimateWorks to cut down on repetitiveness

Mmalin21 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review- Mck24
The article had a clear structure overall, which made it easy to follow while reading. It’s a great start to making the final product and was very informative. Each section also seems equally balanced in regards to the information presented in each category. I also made a few minor edits such as capitalization when needed.

Introduction section-
 * I think the lead is written really well. It is clear and to the point of what the ClimateWorks Foundation is.


 * "ClimateWorks Foundation, listed as one of the Top 100 Largest U.S. Charities by Forbes Magazine in 2016"- sounds a little too PR. Could just start with the second half of that sentence.

History-


 * It is a good description about the history of the organization, how it was founded, and where it is now.


 * “The ClimateWorks foundation has hosted a discussion on "accelerating global climate action" at Climate Week NYC.” – seems a little out of place in this section, could be worked into one of the above paragraphs in this section or placed in another section.


 * "For example, China could save 3.5 gigatons by improving generation, while the United States could save .09 gigatons with more efficient buildings."- Seems like puffery, not sure if an example is needed here.


 * "Hal Harvey, who has since then left ClimateWorks Foundation in December of 2011, is now succeed by Julie Blunden.Blunden was appointed the foundation’s new Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of ClimateWorks on May 21, 2012."- Both sentences need a citation.

Efforts-


 * I think that this section does a good job of informing the reader what the organization does and specific details about how it works.


 * "For instance, Chinese cement production contributes to nearly 5% of carbon dioxide globally."- Needs a citation.

Mck24 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

CaC9 Peer Review
Overall, great work. The sections in your article are relevant, important, and clear to follow. For the most part, with the exception of some words and phrases I pointed out, your article offers neutral content. You have solid, reliable sources, but there are missing citations for some of your sentences. It would be great if you could find one or two more sources. Some suggestions you might consider for your Wikipedia are the following:

Lead: Your lead sentence reads as propaganda by adding “listed as one of the Top 100 Largest U.S. Charities by Forbes Magazine in 2016”. I think you should omit that information from your lead sentence and add it to another part of your article. Instead, focus your lead sentence on explaining what exactly ClimateWorks is and what they do. Remember that your lead sentence should give the reader a good grasp about what your article is about.

History: I think there is room to improve your description on the Sudoku plan. There might be people reading your article that do not know what Sudoku is or how it works, so you can give a brief description of Sudoku and how it applies to ClimateWorks plan. Also, do you know if the Sudoku plan remains in place after Hal Harvey left ClimateWorks? If not, you can probably add information about the plans the new President, Julie Blunden, has for the foundation. Also, your last sentence about the discussion on “accelerating global climate action” is not relevant to the rest of your section. You can move that sentence to another part of the article, perhaps your “Efforts” section, and give a brief explanation about the discussion hosted by ClimateWorks so it doesn’t seem like the sentence was added without purpose.

Efforts: Great first paragraph, but I think you should explain in more detail what you mean by “better practices”. Also, in the example you give about Chinese cement production, it is unclear when you say “in an effort to stop cement factories from upgrading”. Explain what you mean by upgrading. Additionally, be careful when you say “ClimateWorks Foundation is able to offer and design the best techniques…” because it sounds like PR. Unless it was stated by one of your sources, don’t use the word “best” to refer to their techniques. As I mentioned earlier, instead explain what those “best practices” are.

Partnerships/Funding: Great section overall. The only suggestion I have is to describe what some of the partnered organizations are to give the audience a better idea of how a certain partnership with an organization is important and relevant to your article.

CaC9 (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi! I wanted to give my feedback on this draft. Tagging, , ,.


 * I moved the information about the Forbes list to the lead. Putting it into the history section felt a little odd since it didn't really fit into the timeline. It could be seen as a little promotional, but I think that the main issue is that it just interrupted the flow of the section.


 * In the same section you put down Hewlett and Packard, however the foundation that was part of it was actually the Hewlett Foundation. While the foundation was created by the Hewletts, who also co-founded the company, it's not exactly the same thing. Be careful of small details like that. (In all fairness, I thought the same thing for the longest time myself!)


 * I changed the information about the potential in gigatons to refer to information from a specific report, so it's not as vague.

I will likely have more, but wanted to explain what I've changed so far. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC) OK, more feedback!


 * The Daily Mail is not seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia because it's a tabloid, so this needs to be replaced.
 * With the partnerships/funding section, I'd avoid the list format. You can mention that they've funded or worked with various organizations or people, but you don't really need to list them out or even list each one. What's more important is that you describe the work that was created by notable partnerships or funding. This would rely on coverage in independent and reliable sources, of course. Beyond that, the individual partnerships/etc are seen as a bit too much of an indiscriminate detail for Wikipedia.
 * I'm not really certain what step-by-step contributions really means, to be honest. I've changed this to just efforts, since this is a bit more straightforward, and merged it with the other sentence.
 * Within the same section, some of the content is played up a little. Be careful of this, as it's easy for some things to slip by that may seem harmless elsewhere but are seen as promotional on Wikipedia. I've tweaked this section as well. I've removed the "for example" sentence in the first paragraph since it felt kind of unnecessary, since it's kind of a given that China would need to reduce their emissions given the setup earlier in the article. I've also merged some of the sentences in the second paragraph to make it more succinct.
 * Avoid relying too much on a single source, like the NYT piece. This needs more independent and reliable sources. Academic and scholarly sources would definitely be helpful as well.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)