Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Remove my review until i have read and understood WP:RGA mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not even close - far too credulous; takes the book itself far too seriously. Examples: that examines - don't believe this; don't think "examines", which implies a clear-headed unbaised view, is at all appropriate. Booker chronologically charts the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming - ditto - far too credulous William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC should not be commenting on this as he has heavily edited this article, I am unsure of how to proceed with regards to this breach of protocol as it clearly says Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article mark nutley (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinions are welcome from all. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MN's desire to see an article on a subject that he personally promotes a GA makes the neutrality and reliablity of his "review" deeply suspicious; as does his desire to suppress other reviews. Nor, given his clear biases, was it even slightly proper of him to attempt this suppression. For the record - no, I have not "heavily edited" this article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems you must have missed my comments on the talk page. I didn't think that editors involved in the CC pages should do the review, but since that's not the case any longer, I might as well comment here.

Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per 1(a), the article is not "reasonably well written". The writing is not up to GA standard by any stretch. The extensive use of bullet points within the text and the stubby paragraphs in the "Reception" section (four consecutive single-sentence paragraphs!) are the most obvious examples, as are the excessively long sentences in the "Synopsis". The first sentence in the second para, for example, is 68 words long. In addition, the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form.
 * Per 1(b), the article mixes AE and BE, opening with AE despite the fact that it's a British author and was published in the UK.
 * The second paragraph of the lead, for example, quotes Delingpole's review, despite the fact that his review is not included in the body of the article. It also quotes Ball, but not the issues raised by Ball in the body of the article.
 * The "Review" section also overuses quotes; they account for the majority of the words in the paragraphs on Leach's reaction and Hitchens'.
 * Per 2(b), almost half the article is sourced to the book itself. We need rely primarily on reliable secondary sources.
 * Per 3(a), the article does not discuss the book, it does not report on what the few secondary sources it uses actually says about the book. It is not at all "complete".
 * Per 4, there are obvious WP:WEIGHT problems when a fringe topic is presented as if it were mainstream.

Fair review?
If this is a serious review then the review should be reviewing it against the requirments of a Good Article, i.e. WP:WIAGA. Comments from the reviewer, such as "but for now my vote is for GA status" do not bode well, coupled with a direct request from the nominator to the reviewer to carry out the review User talk:Marknutley raise question marks about the validity of this review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Should WMC`s review also be queried? As he has heavily edited this article and [redacted by Stephan Schulz (talk)]? mark nutley (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, please slow down and think. You cannot use a talk page comment by a Wikipedian to support a claim about another editor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that WMC or Mark should have reviewed this article. I myself declined to review it when asked.  If Guettarda is, in fact, volunteering as the official GA reviewer, then once his concerns are addressed I expect him to respond appropriately.  I wonder, though, why Guettarda didn't place the "on hold" or "failed" icon at that GA review board like GA reviewers are supposed to do? Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I should review this article either - I don't think anyone active in the CC area should. I just provided some initial feedbackto give Jprw a sense of why I thought it wasn't ready. After all, I believe it's his first attempt at a GAN. It's hard for a new editor to have a sense of what constitutes a GA. When Mark Nutley went ahead any said "for now my vote is for GA status" I copied and expanded my comments here. Again, he's relatively new, and I was trying to explain to him why it clearly wasn't a GA. I don't consider either of my comments formal reviews - just a broad overview of the sort of things that need to be looked at. If I had done a formal review, I'd have been a lot more specific. (Actually, if I'd done a formal review I would also have quick-failed it. But I would have still done a much more in-depth review). Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Review
I have been asked to review the article against the six criteria for a "good" article. 1. The article is well written, with clear prose and good language. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It addresses the main factors in the debate between climate sceptics and those who promote the thesis that a) global warming is occurring, and b) the warming is primarily caused by mankind. I think it is a fair discussion in which both arguments for and against are represented. It is neutral in treatment, and leaves it to the reader to assess where the balance of the argument lies. Although there have been attempts to change content, they seem to have stabilised. It is illustrated by just two relevant images, which should be increased if possible. It seems to me that it does qualify for the status of a good article. Peterlewis (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Peter, but you were asked to do so by the Nominator, numerous other people have also been asked to do so. I'm quite happy to accept your review is "competent", but this not not how the system is intended to work. Pyrotec (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I'm not going to award GA-status at this time.


 * The requirement for Good Articles is given in: Reviewing good articles. This states: "Reviewers should avoid reviewing articles that they have edited significantly, and should focus on applying Good article criteria and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as verifiability, no original research, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and some key provisions of the Manual of Style; the review should not be influenced by personal feelings about the merit of the article topic.[1] [1. = This is a particular consideration for articles within the scope of a WikiProject where the reviewer is an active member. Sometimes it is helpful for an article to have an expert reviewer, but on other occasions it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic.].


 * This nomination was correctly nominated at WP:GAN but then the nominator actively contacted various editors with the message: "I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk)" and several have responded here with reviews and one is the Reviewer.


 * The nominator can, and is entitled, to take this review to WP:GAR and ask for it to be overturned. I would hope that common sense pervails. That, after a period of carefull consideration, the article is renominated at WP:GAN and the nominator allow an impartial review to take place, i.e. no active attempts are made to select a nominator of your choice. There is a WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010 currently running, if it is resubmited before the end of the month the wait should not be too long.


 * I might have passed the article under different circumstances, so best wishes in improving it. Pyrotec (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My concerns here are over the neutrality and broad coverage aspects, both of which I think the article fails. It does not correctly place the book within its context: re-reading, it is clear that the "background" section is quite inadequate. The essential fact - that these are tiny minority opinions within the field of science - is completely hidden. For example, within the "synopsis" section the only comment on the SAR os The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that " from FS, who is an extreme contrarian. This doesn't come close to neutrality. I think this may be a problem with the GA review process - someone from outside the field is not going to know this William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK they are valid concerns. However, any registered editor (no IP users) who has not significantly contributed to the article is entitled to review it; and anyone else can contribute to the review - which you are doing.
 * But, most of all, the review is intended to be impartial and the Nominator actively requesting editors to undertake the review, two of whom contributed (and one is the Reviewer - not me) is not my idea of impartial reviews.
 * I've failed it: objections (i.e. that I have failed it unjustly) can be made at WP:GAR, but the sensible way forward, to me, is to improve the article and resubmit it at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)