User:Zd89/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The New Climate War

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've always been fascinated by and want to learn more about climate change topics, so I went through environmental topics and found this random one to click and read more about. I expected it to be about a current issue that hasn't gotten much attention in the fight against climate change, somewhat like a precursor to what's ahead.

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.)

Content:

This article's content was pretty straightforward; the article was about a book released this year on climate change. As far as if everything in the article was relevant to the topic, I personally feel like the "summary" section was distracting in that it felt very tedious reading through a summary of each chapter of the book. While the structure of the sentencing was constantly changing to keep it from being cookie-cutter, it still felt very repetitive. The information is not out of date considering the book was only released this year. I think the article could be improved by adding a section on the creation of the book, like for example what challenges he faced while writing it, what happened while writing it, if the book took a different turn, etc. The page is strictly about the book but doesn't offer much insight into why the author is credible enough to be writing this book. I did not notice any notable equity gaps. Overall, I think the article can be improved by editing the Background section to touch on stuff that would intrigue the audience to want to read the book more.

Tone:

The article's tone seems to be slightly biased towards a particular political party. There were parts of this article that felt unnecessary to me as it related to the book but rather felt like it was mentioned to connect or persuade you to favor a particular political party more than the other. While it may be true to say a particular wing of a party is opposed to or worked against the topics mentioned in this book, even if it's a direct quote, it seemed to underrepresent people in that party who may not feel the same way as the lumped party they were put into. I would say I personally felt persuaded in this article.

Sources:

All of the links work except for one. Yes, the source supports the claims in the article. Out of the three sources I checked, the first seems to be slightly biased considering it was an interview the author of the book did with the publication. I would say a publication is not going to actively argue both sides in an interview without taking a side; no, the article does not mention the bias. Yes, the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications; some sources are science community based and others are pop culture magazine editor contributions.

Talk:

For my article, there are no other conversations going on. The article is however a part of two WikiProjects, WikiProject Climate Change and WikiProject Books. The article is rated a C-class for both projects.