User:Tsfnhh5/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Greenhouse gas emissions

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because a lot of discussion in class as of late has been based around greenhouse gases. This particular atmospheric funtion is critical to climate change and the gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere. My first impression of the article was that it would be very in depth and educational. I noticed two vibrant graphics right away and also a fairly detailed table of contents.

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.)

Evaluating content

Because the topic is so general, there are a lot of different aspects that have to be considered. I was reading in the 'Emissions by sector' section and was surprised by some statistics that were offered (one could say there were 'distracting.') I found that the health care industry is responsible for 4.4 - 4.6% of all greenhouse emissions. I was surprised to see a lack of information pertaining to discussion on marginalized populations. Even though the article mentions wealthy countries and individuals as the most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, there is no information on how greenhouse gases can put marginalized populations in harm's way. As for improvement of the article, I think there should be a greater focus on human problems and needs related to greenhouse gases. Statistics of nations and different industrial sectors do not represent the strife humans face as the atmosphere continues to warm, and all of Earth's inhabitants will pay the price.

Evaluating Article Tone

The article appears balanced and neutral. Since there are a lot of statistics given in the article, there is little room for personal interpretation. I am glad this article's tone is neutral, as there are countless statistics on the matter in the article, so any personal opinions risk getting in the way of properly dispersing information.

Evaluating Sources

I did check a few links and found no issues getting the link to work. There appears to be no biased sources, as, once again, there are heaps of statistics offered in this article. The only thing that may be of bias is the mention of the Paris Agreement. This agreement is shown in a more positive light in this article. Even though this is the case, the agreement is politically controversial and is not an overwhelmingly popular topic. Other than that, I found no bias or issues with the sources utilized to back up this article.

Checking the talk page

There are several different discussions going on within the talk page. There is some talk of editing the table of countries or even moving it to a different article. Because there is an article already titled List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, one thought it was redundant to feature it in this particular article. There were two sections that overlapped, and someone suggested that they be merged together. In August 2021, someone offered some suggestions for the article, such as increasing the length of the article's introduction, updating tables and data, and reviewing images on the article.