User:Upuslay/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I became personally interested in climate communications during one of my spring 2021 courses. In that class, I had to write an op-ed around a Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC) publication, and that publication opened my eyes to gaps in climate communications between scientists/other experts and the general public. I see climate communications as one of many key aspects related to climate action because clear and effective communication of climate change information can influence the public to make personal changes to their lifestyles and to place pressure on politicians, industry, and other institutions to make meaningful strides to mitigating climate change. That being said, I also think that it can be difficult to conceptualize what climate communications entails, how it manifests, and how it is perceived by different groups of people. Overall, I found there to be a solid overall structure already established for this article, but some sections seem to be lacking details and the lead of the article doesn't clearly connect to the contents of the article.

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.)

Lead Section:

The lead section of this article provides a clear introduction to the topic of climate communications in the first sentence. However, the lead section fails to describe the major sections that are presently included in the article. The lead section of this article makes brief references to NGOs and the UN Climate Change Secretariat, which aren't expanded upon in the balance of the article. This lead is too concise for the contents of the article and needs more detail in order to provide a better overview of the topic.

Content:

Most of the content in this article is relevant to the topic, but it needs expanded upon in order to better contribute to the article. Much of the content seems to be up-to-date, but there may be new developments in light of the IPCC's latest report that could be pertinent to the article. I think this article is missing content on the effectiveness of climate change communications in relation to different global regions, socioeconomic areas in the US which I think would address the equity gap because it would bring climate change communications in conversation with underrepresented populations. I also think this article discusses climate change and health too much when compared to the other sections.

Tone and Balance:

Overall, I do not think the tone of this article is overly biased, but there are places where it seems to be a bit persuasive, notably in the introductory sentences of sections and paragraphs. I think improvements could be made to present the same ideas with more neutral language. I do not necessarily think this article is overrepresenting or underrepresenting certain viewpoints, but I do think the language conveys the idea that climate change communications is important, which I'm not sure is the aim of Wikipedia.

Sources and References:

Some of these sources don't seem to be the most reliable or thorough. Once citation references a website called Boing Boing, and other citations refer to news media sources that could be likely replaced with more academic, peer-reviewed sources -- which there seems to be a bounty of on google scholar. Most sources to be within the last 10 years, but there may be newer developments that aren't reflected in the article. In terms of representation, most of the sources seems to be written by experts in climate communications, but there don't seem to be any concerning underrepresented populations. I checked a few of the links to sources, and they were working.

Organization and Writing Quality:

Most of the language is concise, clear, and easy to read, however changes can be made to more explicitly reference sources and to convey the information in a more neutral manner. There ca I did not detect any glaring spelling or grammatical errors. As noted earlier, I think the organization of this article could be improved in order to reflect the major points by re-sectioning, or at the very least including more information in order to convey the importance of the major points presently included.

Images and Media:

The images included in this article do not seem to be the most relevant; however, I also think it could be difficult to find appropriate images that follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The images don't severely detract from the article, but they also don't seem to clearly connect to the topic of climate communications. Overall, the images are well-captioned but could possibly be revised in order to connect better with the topic. One of the images is from a poll conducted by the YPCCC, and I am not positive that follows the copyright rules. The YPCCC is referenced but the image is not directly cited to the appropriate poll conducted by the YPCCC.

Talk Page Discussion:The talk page for this article primarily focuses on emphasizing the communication aspect of this topic so as to not belabor information present in other articles and thus to create overlap. Contributors of the talk page have expressed constructing this article around being an introduction to other topics relevant to climate change. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Climate change and the WikiProject media. Under both projects, it is categorized as C-class; it is of high-importance under climate change and mid-importance for media. There is not much discussion on Wikipedia of the topic, but I think similar to in-class discussions, there is recognition of the intersectionality of climate communications.

Overall Impressions:

I think this article is a work in progress due to its underdeveloped status. I think this article has a strong framework that can be easily expanded upon, and there are some sections (Barriers to understanding and Effective climate communication) that need minimal work, if any. However, some sections (eg. history and media coverage) include scant information, and there are sections about coverage and reception that have not been included. Some improvement that could be made include: making additions that will then require some restructuring, evaluating some of the language and adjusting as necessary, evaluating sources/references, and trying to include more relevant images.