User:KarateCats/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It was the first article I found about an interesting topic. It is important to have accurate portrayal of climate change related conferences as this information can help convince people of the importance of climate action.

The article seemed to be too brief without mentioning highlights or outcomes of the conference, it also hasn't been edited in a long time and looks a little unfinished.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)The first sentence concisely and clearly describes the article: the date and topic of the conference. The lead paragraph briefly mentions the conference's date, location, sponsors, the number of delegates, and the types of presentations. However, it could benefit from a more structured overview of the article's significant sections and more clarity. The lead is concise and provides relevant information without excessive details. It does not introduce information that is not present in the article.

The article's content is relevant to the 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference topic. The article appears to cover the main aspects of the conference, yet it seems a little too brief. No irrelevant content is present in the article. The article mentions events from 2009 and 2011. Due to its subject, it is unlikely that significant updates would be needed unless there are more follow-up conferences. The article does not explicitly address equity gaps, historically underrepresented populations, or topics.

The article appears neutral and factual, presenting information without apparent bias. There are no obvious heavily biased claims toward a particular position, and it seems to represent the conference's objectives moderately. The article provides a balanced presentation of the conference's goals and outcomes without overrepresenting or underrepresenting any viewpoints. Fringe points of view are not mentioned, and it is unclear if they exist. The article is dry, and factual and does not persuade the reader towards a position.

The sources appear to adequately represent the available literature on the topic. It includes the University of Oxford's website and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which are reputable sources. Due to its finite history and the nature of the topic, it does not require further updates despite being from 2009 and 2011. The following sources could be interesting to add from to represent the context for this conference sand its rationale:

Jehn, F. U., et al. (2021). Betting on the best case: Higher-end warming is underrepresented in research. Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), 084036.

And

Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2012). Beliefs and Denials About Climate Change: An Australian Perspective. EcoPsychology, 4(4).

There are very few authors, but it is expected with a short article. The sources mentioned in the article appear appropriate for the topic with several scientific publications with sources like Oxford. Most of the provided links appear to work, but a few seem to have expired.

The article is concise, clear, and easy to read. It does not contain noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized, with subsections that reflect the significant points of the topic.

The article does not include images. Since there are no images, captions and copyright compliance are not applicable. The same is true for the layout.

There are several old conversations about technical corrections and external links. It is part of the following WikiProjects as low-importance: Environment, Climate Change, International Relations.

The article appears to be in reasonably good shape. It is bare of any additional information but it provides a basic overview of the conference and its significance. The article's strengths include its neutrality, clear writing, and organization. The article could provide more context and information on the topic. Additionally, adding images or multimedia content could enhance the article. The article feels like it is not complete and that there is room to add more information.

In summary, the Wikipedia article "The 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference" provides a good introduction to the conference but could benefit from minor improvements in the lead section and the addition of visual elements. The article generally adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines and maintains a neutral tone.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting