User:Upuslay/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Article Evaluation:
Overall this a relatively well-developed article that has plenty of room for improvements. Lead section is not overly relevant to the contents of the balance of the article. Lead section fails to mention and to properly summarize the main points that follow. There is a solid structure to expand around and upon by including more details for some of the sections (eg. history) and including a few sections about reception and underrepresented areas/populations. Some of the citations do not seem to be the most reputable but can hopefully be replaced. In areas, the language does not seem as neutral as it should be, nor are the images that appropriate to the topic. The talk page seems to focus on shaping this article as an introduction and aims to not create overlap between other articles.

* A more thorough evaluation of this article is conducted in a previous exercise.

Sources:

 * "Climate Change Communication and Public Engagement in Interpersonal Deliberative Settings: Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly"
 * "From "Communicating" to "Engagement": Afro-Relationality as a Conceptual Framework for Climate Change Communication in Africa"
 * "Framing Climate Change Communication to Prompt Individual and Collective Action among Adolescents from Agricultural Communities"
 * "Communications about uncertainty in scientific climate-related findings: a qualitative systematic review"
 * "Reason and rhetoric in climate communication"
 * "The Influence of Science Communication on Indigenous Climate Change Perception: Theoretical and Practical Implications"

Article Evaluation:
This article seems to be a little underdeveloped to me. For the most part, the lead section provides a sufficient description of soft climate change denial; however, it doesn't mention some of the sections/subsections covered in this relatively short article. The lead section also seems to too extensively cover neoskepticism while neglecting to include other parts of the article. The tone of this article is quite objective, but there is a heavy reliance on one source (Michael Hoexter) in a couple sections that may not accurately represent the entire discourse of the subject. Considering this, I think some sections need expanded upon in order to better reflect information about the topic, and I think sections could be added that detail how soft climate change denial manifests and how it can be addressed. The claims currently in the article are followed by citations that seem to be from reputable sources. Presently, there is no information on underrepresented populations, which may also be something to further research and include in the article. On the talk page, this article is listed under several Wikiprojects, and the remaining discussion was not concerned with the content of the article.

Sources:
An initial search showed it would be difficult to find abundant sources on soft climate change denial as most searches produced works on general climate change denial. Searching "soft climate change denial" did not produce any results on Google Scholar or Yale Quicksearch.


 * "The Corporate Elite and the Architecture of Climate Change Denial: A Network Analysis of Carbon Capital's Reach into Civil Society"
 * "Climate change denial and beliefs about science"
 * "The impact of unemployment and economic risk perceptions on attitudes towards anthropogenic climate change"

Article Evaluation:
The first thing I noticed is that the lead section for this article does not relate to the sections covered in the article nor does the first sentence introduce the concept. The lead section defines frameworks in a general manner but does not preview the balance of the article or consider frameworks related to climate mitigation. The lead section should be revised to reflect the contents of the article, or the article should be revised to relate climate change mitigation to common international political science frameworks like (rationalist, culturalist, etc.). I don't think the language throughout this article adheres to Wikipedia standards because it is not concise and does not read like an encyclopedia. However, I would not say this article has a strong bias or persuasive nature; it just does not strike the tone I think Wikipedia looks for. I think information about previous global protocols and agreements could have more detail and more concrete connection to the idea of climate change mitigation frameworks. It seems like the section of history of approach to solving climate change the section on the history of climate change frameworks could possibly be combined. There are a few places in the article that are marked as citation needed, and, in other places, citations are used sparingly. The references that are cited appear to be from reputable sources. There is no mention of underrepresented/misrepresented populations and there is likely reasoning and ways to correct that. On the talk page, this article is listed under the Wikiproject Climate Change and the Wikiproject Law but as low-importance. The discussion in the peer review section of this article mentions that this is article is concerned with international frameworks for addressing emissions -- and is not representative of all them at that -- which is something that is not effectively conveyed in this article and should be improved upon. The peer review also mentions that the article should expand upon the concept of a top-down approach and should mention SDGs and MDGs and their role within climate change mitigation frameworks. With that in consideration, I think the content of this article needs to be greatly expanded upon in order to fit the title of the article or the title of the article should be revised in order to provide greater focus. Either way, I think the suggestions in the peer review section should be implemented.

Sources:

 * Climate change mitigation in developing countries : a critical assessment of the Clean Development Mechanism
 * Governance approaches to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change in Asia
 * "National Climate Change Mitigation Legislation, Strategy and Targets: A Global Update"
 * "Integrating Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals with Other Sustainability Objectives: A Synthesis"
 * "Why the shared socioeconomic pathway framework has not been useful for improving climate change mitigation policy analysis"

Article Evaluation:
To me, the most important fault with this article is that the lead section has no connection to the contents of the article. The lead section defines stranded assets in economic and financial risk management scenarios but does give a purview of the climate-related asset stranding detailed later on. Because of this discrepancy, the lead section does not properly introduce the article. Overall, I think this article has a lot of great content, but I found that reading some of the content was hard to follow because of organization and writing style. Currently, some of the subsections, notably Agriculture, are composed of several brief paragraphs that aren't connected ideologically, so some restructuring and some introducing of subheadings would make the movement from idea to idea easier to follow. Right now, the writing contains lots of information in parentheses, which disrupts the flow of reading and comprehension. The sections about the Fish production, tourism, and retail sections were significantly shorter than those related to energy and agriculture, and these sections contained significantly less citations when compared to previous sections. If possible, more information should be gathered on these sectors to back up the current claims in the article and expand upon the topics. The article does not contain content on underrepresented/misrepresented populations, which is something that should be included because stranded assets will likely disproportionately affect low-income, ethnic communities that are already disproportionately affected by the environment. There also could have been greater discussion of stranded assets in relation to different global regions, and, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which revealed the fragility of our global supply chains and markets. A survey of stranded assets in relation to SDGs and the Paris Agreement would also have been appropriate. On the positive side, this article is written from a pretty neutral perspective and the sources seem reliable. This article is a WikiProject under Economics, Finance & Investment, and Climate Change, and there is not much discussion on the article's talk page about improvements aside from including non-environment related stranded assets. I agree with this point because the title of the article and its lead section is a little misleading, and the article should include more information about general stranded assets.

Sources:

 * "Stranded asset implications of the Paris Agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean"
 * Stranded assets and the environment : risk, resilience and opportunity
 * "Fossil fuels, stranded assets and COVID-19: Imagining an inclusive & transformative recovery"
 * "Inclusive Development and Climate Change: The Geopolitics of Fossil Fuel Risks in Developing Countries"
 * "Stranded Assets: A Climate Risk Challenge"

Article Evaluation:
Overall, I think this article provides a lot of great content that matches the title. The lead selection does a pretty good job of outlining the contents of the article; however, it seems to a focus a little too heavily on Mountaintop removal. In the body of the article, a greater discussion of specific environmental justice events could have been relevant, as well as coal mining regulations and public health/socioeconomic policies. If such scholarship exists, an explanation of what environmental justice looks like in Appalachia and public perception of environmental justice groups would have been appropriate because I would surmise that residents of Appalachia have a perspective on what environmental justice means and how it interacts with the economy they depend upon. When researching additional sources, it seems like building prisons is a large theme related to mining that should also be explored. The article seems to be in a pretty neutral point of view even though there is a message at the top of article about its potential biases. A breakdown of the demographics of Appalachia and how coal mining explicitly effects minorities and women would help bring in underrepresented voices. On the whole, the article is supported with several reputable sources, but there are places that citations seem to be few and far between, which should be remedied. On the talk page, there is a lot of discussion from education-related peer reviewers and on renaming the article and merging it with Environmental issues in Appalachia. Most of the discussion on the talk page is from before the article was a subject of a course project, and it appears the article is in better shape than previously.

Sources:

 * Standing our ground : women, environmental justice, and the fight to end mountaintop removal
 * Mountains of injustice social and environmental justice in Appalachia
 * "Coal, Identity, and the Gendering of Environmental Justice Activism in Central Appalachia"
 * "Trashing Appalachia: Coal, prisons and whiteness in a region of refuse"
 * "A Green New Deal for Appalachia: Economic Transition, Coal Reclamation Costs, Bottom-Up Policymaking (Part 1)"
 * "Power beyond powerlessness: Miners, activists, and bridging difference in the Appalachian coalfields"