Wikipedia:Peer review/Kyoto Protocol/archive1

Kyoto Protocol
This article is a very important climate related article. This is just one of the many reasons for it to be a featured article. Please feel free to leave a suggestion to help improve it. Tarret 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really that happy that Kyoto treaty didn't redirect to it. It's normally called this in the UK. I belive the map may need updating becuase, didn't George Bush (even although he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol) agree to at least help combat carbon emissons? --Kilo-Lima 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kyoto treaty would be technically inaccurate, but a redirect would not do any harm. The map shows the status of the Kyoto protocol in different countries. This has not changed in the US. I'm also somewhat sceptical about non-concrete, non-binding statements of politicians, but that's another topic. --Stephan Schulz 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally. --Kilo-Lima 22:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the introduction, what does IPCC stand for. I think that consideration may need to be taken to avoid confusing acronyms throughout the article. Perhatps just using one or two words form the names of the organisations to refer to them would be a good idea. MyNameIsNotBob 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wikied IPCC William M. Connolley 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Please change the in text links to external site to footnotes.--nixie 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. Read the discussion if you like. William M. Connolley 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC).


 * Without full citations a refernce section for each html link in text, this article won't pass FAC. The information for each website needs to be correctly cited for future tracability and so the reader knows where they are actually being sent when they click on something.--nixie 06:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Use proper inline citations or perish in FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself have no objection to people using the inline Harvard system (though I dislike the non-inline footnote system). But I can't (yet) be bothered to do it myself, since I don't find it very interesting. I think its a shame that FAC should depend on this; but if it does, so much the worse for FAC. William M. Connolley 09:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC).