User:Brinturner/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate engineering

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the climate engineering article because it is an area in which my personal and academic interests overlap. The subject has been covered in my courses briefly, but the topic of geoengineering and its relation to inequality has been circulating, due to a few studies that were published in the last year. This topic is highly relevant to current climate events and presents an option that should be explored in depth. My preliminary impression of climate engineering is fairly broad, with an emphasis on the ethical dilemmas and potential for error.

Evaluate the article
The lead of this article is brief and high level, given the complexity of the subject. However, it still does a good job of highlighting the main points of the article and explaining the issue to a first time reader. The only aspect of the lead that may be overdetailed is the description of short term and longterm radiation budgets.

The articles content is generally relevant, with the exception of the section on carbon dioxide removal. This section is flagged as "unrelated or insufficiently related to its topic" and I agree with that marking. Though carbon dioxide removal is related to climate engineering, the level of detail and explanation were not necessary. I also would not say that this is fully up to date on the subject given the ever developing nature of the field. There have been more recent studies on geoengineering that I was surprised to see were not mentioned.

The article is fairly neutral with a focus on the opposition to geoengineering. The reflects the current consensus in the scientific community surrounding solar engineering and the like. I would say that the article is fair in the representation of arguments, with a slight preference towards the integration of climate engineering.

This article is well backed up by diverse and strong sources and all of the reference links are functional. My only critique on sources would be the lack of inclusion of data around inequality and climate engineering. There was a study done in 2020 by Anthony R. Harding et. al, that highlights the relationship clearly.

The article is well written, but is lacking in media. There is only one relevant image in the stronger sections of the article, and one unimportant image in the "unrelated" section. The conversations happening behind the scenes concern the carbon removal section, governance section, and discussions on whether solar engineering and carbon removal should be separated out. The discussions mainly concern content and restructuring, with the critique being the difference in perception between Wikipedians. As some do not view carbon dioxide removal as a facet of the issue at all. The article is part of 5 wikiprojects, and was part of Wiki Education Foundation on two occasions.

Overall, I think this article does a good job of summarizing the findings of research in the field, but could work on the related sections and what is included in those discussions. I would say this article is mid development, as there are still some structural issues. I think dealing with the Carbon Dioxide Removal Section, as in either restructuring or removing it, is the largest area for improvement.