User:Cfz88/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Paris Agreement- Last edited on January 29, 2023 at 2:21pm (Evaluating on January 29, 2023 at 6:40pm)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to focus on something relevant to the class and environmental sciences and to see how Wikipedia can cover larger historical events like the Paris Agreement with sufficient and updated details. It has a lot of information to cover so I wanted to see if it could tackle the issue clearly and sufficiently.

Evaluate the article
This article is very thorough in its information on the topic. It has detailed sections on the development of the Paris Agreement as well as the content included from the nationally determined contributions of the signed countries and a specific breakdown of the treaty's structure and mitigation of environmental issues. It examines the climate change adaptation provisions as well as the concerns of countries like finances, human rights protections, effectiveness, and transparency. They have continued to update the page as new information comes out, like President Joe Biden's readmission into the Paris Agreement during his first day in the office after former President Trump withdrew in 2017. They leave out some unnecessary content, for example, by just highlighting the core pledges and plans rather than going through all of the 29 articles in detail.

I cannot recognize any hints of bias in the article. It does not question the legitimacy of the climate change or issue any opinions on whether the agreement is unfair to Americans and our economy like President Trump suggested, which were highly contested arguments at the time of Trump's withdrawal.

There are 133 sources listed from very neutral unbiased sites like major news networks, the official United Nations page, and environmental publications. Major of the sources come directly from the Paris Agreement's official documentation and are each cited for their individual use.

In the talk section, users are examining the use of jargon that needs to be explained further, as well as some apparent systematic bias towards the US and EU. They also spoke on the readability score of the article which they feel is not acceptable and want to have the article more accessible to readers with less scientific background than themselves.