Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/Archive1

The Global warming article begins with the assumption that the Global warming theory is true, which violates NPOV. Rather, it should provide a balance between the claims of GW theory proponents and GW critics.

The bulk of the article should be on evidence which supports or contradicts GW.

The article should be written in language which is simple enough for an educated (or patient!) layman to figure out. Undefined, obscure terms like "forcings" should not appear in the intro.

GW theory should be presented in the form of a hypothesis that makes predictions. In other words, if GW is true, what sort of temperature trends will we see? How will sea level, polar ice accumulation, glacier advance (or retreat) be affected?

Where on will temperatures be expected to go up (or down)? How about the various layers of atmosphere? Will warming be more pronounced in mid to upper layers or be the same anywhere?

What sorts of observations would GW adherents accept as disproof of GW theory? Has any scientist ever said, "If GW is true, we will see X but not Y." Or, "If we see Z then we would know that GW isn't true."

I realize GW theory is politically popular, but popularity shouldn't be the basis of a FA recommendation. This article is not well written. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Views of important critics (i.e. professors of climate science at major universities) should not be relegated to a different page. Criticisms should be directly on this main page. If not, then every other Wikipedia entry has to shift to the "Topic" and "Critics of Topic" as separate pages as well. Superdoggy 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: What is this? Its not a review of an FA article. FA status has standards, and popularity or lack thereof is not one. Ed, if you have specific criteria for why this article should not be FA, state them. Otherwise, it just looks like angling for Yet Another Ed Poor POV Split. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)