User:Moya.priroda/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Global warming potential - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As I strive to build my career in the chemical field with an incline towards environmental issues, the topic of global warming is fundamental for understanding the basic concepts underlying this issue and the target problems I want to solve.

The first impression is good - I see a lot of links to other Wikipedia articles and citations; the topics are divided each having its concise and clear title, although it is only an impression I get at the first glance without actually reading the content.

Evaluate the article
Starting with the lead section, an introductory sentence is present and is concise, however, it is not very clear (although it just might be the problem of my understanding). The section seems to include the most important topics that are discussed later on in the article, however, I am not certain if it is appropriate to include examples of global warming potentials of particular gases in this part of the article - I assume it should be described in the designated section.

I had a couple of concerns during the reading of this article. For instance, I questioned why the first table was incomplete (the small number of gases represented and this fact stated under the table) and whether there was an option to combine the two tables. Other than that, the term "time horizon" came out of nowhere - as a reader, I had to guess whether it was what I thought or not. It is also interesting that they put water vapour into an independent section - I know how important it is as a greenhouse gas (it has an even more significant effect than carbon dioxide in terms of changing the infrared flux), so that is a curious decision to separate it from others. Overall, I think all included topics are relevant and well-balanced.

While reading, I did not notice any bias or persuasive tone, so I would say that this article is neutral. I also think that the fraction of the test dedicated to each section is reasonable, nothing seems to be under- or overrepresented.

The links work and the references seem to be reliable and up-to-date. They include scientific and peer-reviewed articles and government reports, and the annual index is dated the spring of the current year.

Mostly, I did not spot any grammatical or spelling errors. The writing style was confusing at times, but that might be because it is a scientific article that uses complex concepts and terms without which it would not make sense. The organization, in my opinion, is a subjective topic, but I would prefer the "Criticism and othe metrics" section to be the last before the references - that is how I have seen it in most resources so far and that is what I am used to. Other than that, as it is not a historical topic, the sections cannot be organized in chronological order which makes almost any arrangement acceptable.

The only diagram included in this article is in the lead section and even though it is relevant to the topic, I would prefer it to be explained further, possibly in some upcoming section, however, it is left with a brief description.

From the Talk page, I can see that this article belongs to two WikiProjects: Environment and Climate Change, ranking low and high importance accordingly. Moreover, here I can see how people discuss the changes made to the article, and the character of this discussion is very diverse. Some people justify their point of view, some write that they have heard about a certain fact and some simply assert that the whole article should be deleted. Also, some Wikipedians use indentation when answering, and some do not, which illustrates the convenience of the indented structure.

As mentioned on the Talk page, this article is related to the topic of climate change which is designated as a contentious topic. So this article may be controversial, and even though most dialogues between contributors to this text were written around 15 years ago, I would still attribute it to the ones that need further development and refinement and I would say that it is a work in progress. The concerns that I have described earlier can be addressed to improve the article and can also lead to further discussions and new topics and questions that will make this text more extensively researched and detailed. --Moya.priroda (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)