Talk:Carbon accounting/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Per Earwig, the phrase comprehensive, global, standardized framework for measuring and managing emissions from private and public sector operations, value chains, products, cities and policies is taken directly from here. I can see this is almost impossible to rephrase to meet WP:PARAPHRASE, so I would recommend putting it in quotes.
  • Done.
• File:Bioenergy system boundaries.jpg has a CC 4.0 licence, but there's no indication on the source page that the image has that licence, unless I'm missing something.
  • EMsmile - I believe you inserted this image - any thoughts on this particular issue? Might be best to just delete this graphic from the article.

    I've checked and the image comes from this paper which is clearly marked as CC BY (at the top of the page). So as far as I can see the image has the same licence as the paper and is therefore compatibly licenced. I think it's a useful image to have, particularly given that this article is so low on images. EMsmile (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    That works; thanks -- I hadn't spotted that link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• File:Sentinel 5P model.jpg says "own work" of the uploader, but that seems to be incorrect as they also say they have cut out the image from its background.
  • Chidgk1 - would you be willing to look into this?

SkywalkerPL - We are currently using an image you uploaded as part of the Carbon accounting article. It’s unclear whether this is an image you created, or whether it’s cut out from another source and put on a white background. It looks like you released it with a CC 3.0 license. Can you help clafity this for us?

• File:Carbon Accounting Scopes.png: as with the others, the source page doesn't seem to give the claimed licence.
  • I'm confused by this comment- when I look at the source page, the caption for this image states: “(CC BY 4.0, Modified from World Resources Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol)”. WRI’s licensing page also states that their images are CC , with a link to the CC BY 4.0 page. Is that not sufficient?

    I'll strike this (I hadn't found the WRI page) but there's one part of this that I have to take on faith, which is that the image really does come from the WRI -- searching wri.org for images related to scopes doesn't find it, for example. I think this is good enough for GA but ideally we'd add the WRI URL for this image on wri.org to the image file. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have located the WRI image before, so will double check my notes and add the appropriate WRI URL to the image file. Dtetta (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Done.Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• FN 95, Treepoints, is a blog -- blogs are usually not reliable sources, but in this case is the author a subject matter expert?
  • I don’t think this author would be considered a subject matter expert. I think the other citation at the end of this sentence provides adequate support for the text, so I deleted the Treepoints citation.
• MOS:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs in the lead. This is not an absolute requirement, but I think it would be good here to combine the second and third paragraphs, which have similar topics.
  • Done.
• FYI, there's no requirement for citations in the lead except for direct quotes and controversial topics. It's harmless to leave those citations in (and certainly not a problem for this GA review) but I wanted to make sure you knew it was unnecessary. This is because everything in the lead should be in the body as well, and cited in the body already.
  • I was advised by another editor that the lead should include citations, but will look at removing those.

    At User:Dtetta: no please don't remove the citations from the lead. They are very important for when leads are transcribed with the excerpt tool. I actually think the WP:MOS should be updated to say that citations in leads are a good thing to have. See also on my talk page where I have discussed this with User:Mike Christie further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EMsmile#LST? EMsmile (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    I'm striking this point; this was just FYI and EMsmile gives a good reason for keeping them in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "They published the first version of Greenhouse Gas Protocol": should this be "They published the first version of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol"? I see you use it elsewhere in the article without "the" in front.
  • David Rich, with WRI, was one of the subject matter experts I consulted when developing the current version of the article. He suggested that convention for referencing Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

    OK. I see a couple of the sources use "the Greenhouse Gas Protocol", but the article itself is consistent so struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Both the US[26] and the UK[27] governments have recently issued executive type orders that require this practice." Assuming these two footnotes cover the US and UK respectively, I would suggest moving both to the end of the sentence, to make it clear they cite the whole sentence. I'd also suggest removing "recently"; it's not that important, and would require an "as of" statement to avoid it becoming dated.
  • Done.
• "The CDM has a detailed set of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification procedures": does this need to be upper case like this?
  • It’s a specific term of art in this field. My memory is the web sites I have reviewed all use capitalization for that term.

    OK. I see that elsewhere in the article you use the same phrase without capitalization; can I just check that that should not be capitalized too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Understand - I will double check on this capitalization issue and ensure that it is used consistently in the article, and post a notice hear when I believe it’s done.Dtetta (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    My memory of this was incorrect. Converted text to lower case.Dtetta (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Similar procedures to document project reductions under Article 6 of the Paris agreement are yet to be worked out": needs an "as of" qualification.
  • Done - used “As of 2023” as a qualifier.

    I think that has to be "As of 2022", unless you have a later source; your source for this is dated 2022. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Done.Dtetta (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• You have "cap-and-trade" and "cap and trade"; I would be consistent. And I'd suggest linking it to emissions trading; you've already linked to that article earlier but I think it's worth repeating the link for those unfamiliar with the term.
  • Done - went with the convention on the California Cap-and-Trade webpage

    Well, the website is actually "California Cap and Trade", though I see they do use "cap-and-trade" in running text, so it's inconsistent. This is a minor point, and I'm fine if you want to leave it as is, but do you think there is a standard usage or are both forms -- hyphenated and not hyphenated -- seen in the literature? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Did a brief search on the term, and it appears that both hyphenated and non-hyphenated approaches are used. Dtetta (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "have incorporated principles from the 2006 IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories": IPCC should be at least linked, and perhaps explained.
  • Done - Spelled out IPCC and created link
• "GHG Protocol refers to a group of standards that are the most common in GHG accounting." I'm not clear what this is saying. You say GHG Protocol refers to a group of standards; is this just saying that GHG Protocol *is* a group of standards?
  • Yes - I think it makes sense to characterize it that way. Edited text accordingly.
• In the subsection on TCFD I would start by explaining what TCFD is.
  • Done.
• "It recommends a source and activity framework rather than a scope based framework to calculate emissions." What is a "source and activity framework"?
  • Clarified this text - please let me know if you think it’s understandable.
• "The guidance covers five basic emissions generating." Looks like an incompletely edited sentence?
  • Yes it was - it’s been corrected.
• "These include GHG activities and sources over which a local government has significant influence GHG activities of community interest": I think this is missing a semicolon after "influence".
  • Done
• "The programs themselves cover GHG accounting rules as other requirements. Accounting rules cover areas such as monitoring, reporting, and verification. Program requirements can cover project eligibility, certification, and other aspects" I don't understand this. The previous sentence mentions compliance programs; is that what this is referring to? And what does it mean to say "cover GHG accounting rules"? And what's the connection of the third sentence to the previous two?
  • Revised the paragraph to address your comments - let me know if you think this new wording is clearer.

    Yes, that's much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Additionality and uncertainty are not specifically required by the protocol": how could uncertainty be required by a protocol?
  • Uncertainty in this context is referring to guidance on how uncertainty in GHG emission estimates for a given activity are characterized in reports. Protocols vary in the extent to which they require the uncertainty of emission estimates to be characterized.

    I think this could be clearer. How about inverting the sentence so we start with the general point, like so: "The protocol gives general guidance on applying the concepts of additionality and uncertainty, but provides no specific requirements for them"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Revised the text along the lines you suggested.Dtetta (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard has similar accounting principles, but applies to general programs and policies designed to reduce GHGs": should be "but these are applied to" if I understand the intended meaning.
  • Switched the text to the wording you suggest.

    Looks like this edit got lost? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for catching that - it's done now. Dtetta (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "These include relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency, and conservativeness." This sentence appears in the article three times. I'm not sure we need it at all, since it's related to the underlying accounting principles rather than the frameworks themselves, but if we do have to have it can we avoid the repetition?
  • Revised the case of repetition in the project accounting standards section. The other instance earlier in the article is a slightly different wording, and does not include relevance. It’s based on a different guidance document.
• "using various methods or based on project categories": the first part of this is so vague as to be meaningless; I'd drop it or clarify.
  • Revised the wording to improve clarity - those two approaches are, in fact, distinct.

    This appears to be unchanged? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange, thought I had corrected this - it’s now been edited to make the wording more specific. Dtetta (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "In addition to the traditional uses described above": is "traditional" the right word? I think it could be cut without harming anything.
  • Done.
• "through the use of eligible renewable energy resources": I think we need to say what "eligible" means here, or at least provide a link.
  • Deleted “eligible”, I think just “renewable energy resources” seems pretty clear. Questions about eligibility are probably not all that relevant in this context.

    Seems this edit got lost too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - that change has been made now. Dtetta (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "renewable obligation certificates": is this the same thing as a REC?
  • As I understand it, and tried to describe it in the article, they mean essentially the same thing, but the UK uses different terminology.

    REC is used for the sentences about India and Australia, so is the UK the exception here? Or is REC a US term? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    The NREL citation for this text describes the use of RECs in Australia and India, in addition to the US. It also states that "renewable obligation certificates" is the terminology used in the UK, and that guarantees of origin are used in the EU. Revised paragraph to reflect this. Dtetta (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Companies that purchase RECs can use them to lower average emissions factors in their accounting." I don't follow this, although the definition of eligible above might resolve it. This sounds like a form of emissions trading; is that right? If so the REC must indicate that there was a net reduction in emissions in the megawatt supplied, so presumably what the companies purchase is the offset of emissions? So RECs might differ in the amount they offset, and hence in their value?
  • As I understand it, green energy purchases have two components - one is the purchase of the power itself, the other is the REC, which has its own value in these markets. In places like California, they are used to meet targets that are part of Renewable Portfolio Standards, and can be bought and sold. The Scientific American citation does a good job of describing the process and how companies can use it to make there emissions seem lower. I was trying to summarize the gist of that.

    I read a couple of the relevant sources and I see that some of the vagueness is in the sources themselves -- one says "In practice, a wide range of REC and GO definitions exist". I think a couple of points aren't clear in the current subsection on RECs. The sentence "Companies that purchase RECs can use them to lower average emissions factors in their accounting" seems to apply only to the US, for one thing. Another point is that the definition of GO & REC varies; that should be clearer. And I think the point made in the Scientific American article, that the use of a REC does not imply additional renewable power has been brought to the grid, since it could have been generated anyway, needs to be brought out in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Good point - revised text to include that specific issue. Dtetta (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    I've struck the point you clarified; any thoughts on the other parts of my comment? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    It's clear that Gillenwater (although he is a leading authority on carbon accounting and carbon offsets) is not a fan of RECs of GOs. Although his opinion is that the definitions are vague, I'm not sure going into detail on that is very helpful in the context of this article. He does talk about RECs and GOs being used in both the US and Europe (page 6), so I don't think the tactic of using these instruments to report lower Scope 2 emissions is not limited to the US. Thought about ways the text might be further revised, but in the end I think the current version is still an appropriate and accurate characterization of the issue. Dtetta (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Data from facility level accounting can improve the overall quality and accuracy of national inventories by providing validation for inventory estimates": what does "inventory estimates" refer to? The GHG accounting for the fixed elements of the plant?
  • One example is, for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, EPA use reporting from specific plants, like you describe, to create inventory estimates for industrial sectors that are used to support the overall US GHG inventory estimate that is reported to the UNFCCC. Facility data can be used to provide a quality assurance check on some of these numbers. The WRI citation describes this starting on p.8. Admittedly, I am trying to summarize a lot of detail in a short sentence. But does that make sense? I modified the sentence, and hopefully its a little more understandable.

    On rereading I think this is OK. "Emission inventory" is a term of art here, and I think it would be inappropriate to define it within this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Some of these stories have been called misleading." This is a vague way to refer to the underlying story. I'm not sure this is worth including, unless there are sources we could use to create a section about media coverage of carbon accounting.
  • So the main message is that large numbers of companies now report their data to organizations like CDP. CDP issues reports like the carbon majors report, which new media then uses to create headlines like: “The biggest 10 GHG emitters are responsible for most of the world’s GHGs” The Snopes citation points out how this can be a flawed process that creates misperceptions, and uses one specific instance to illustrate this. I think all these aspects are important, and revised the text slightly to make this clearer.

    Fair enough, but I don't think the text as it stands does make this clear. For one thing "have been called" implies that it's just an opinion that they were misleading -- Snopes is a reliable source, and we can say "were misleading" or even "incorrect" if Snopes supports that. A bigger issue is that this is a generality, but the supporting source only talks about one particular misleading factoid. We don't have a source that says "the rankings lead to multiple misleading news stories". I think if this particular misleading story is worth mentioning, we should give the details as concisely as we can. However, as I say above, if we're going to stray from facts about carbon accounting into media coverage of carbon accounting we have to make sure we cover the whole topic, not just this one story, and that would require more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Understand your point - will work on revising this paragraph to provide a more detailed description with additional sources. Probably will take a few days to complete. Dtetta (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Decided to work on it today. Added some additional sources and clarified that the Snopes article referred to the coverage of the 2017 CDP carbon majors report. Did not go so far as to actually say it “was misleading”, as I was not able to find any web pages where the Guardian or Wired defended their stories. The Snopes report was well documented, so if you feel strongly about it, I’m fine going with that “was misleading” language. Dtetta (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    I think what you have now works -- "shown to be misleading" seems accurate to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Understanding the overall impacts of GHG reporting in contributing towards climate change goals can be difficult." I'm not clear on what this means; can you clarify?
  • Revised to clarify that is is more related to the effect on reducing an organizations emissions.
• Is it "EU ETS" or "EU-ETS"?
  • This EU page describes it as EU ETS without the hyphen, so I edited the article to reflect that usage.
• "These include whether or not the studies are done in places where there are also some sort of a price on carbon, such as the EU-ETS." Needs rephrasing; "where there are also some sort of a" is ungrammatical and I'm not clear what's intended -- maybe "where carbon can be traded"? Or "where there is a cost to emissions"?
  • Changed “are” to “is”, and went with “emissions trading”.
• "Even Scope 3 emissions data from commercial data providers tend to be highly inconsistent." What does "commercial data providers" refer to? Industry entities whose business is to obtain and report this data? If they are not the source, but only the middle men, I don't see why their data should be consistent.
  • The point of the paragraph is that Scope 3 data have reliability/accuracy issues. As you state, (and the citation mentions) there are firms that collect this data, do a variety of auditing checks on the information, and then sell the reports to organizations like investment firms. The purpose of the last sentence is just as a final example of unreliability/poor accuracy in the data (even companies that are acting like third party auditors don’t produce consistent information), in addition to the other examples cited in the paragraph.

    The fact that these firms are supposed to be auditing the data seems to me to be an important part of this point that's not directly stated in the argument. Auditing should make the data accurate, and therefore consistent across data providers. Without mentioning that these firms evaluate and vouch for the data, the article gives the reader no reason to expect consistency because we don't say what these data providers are supposed to be doing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Good point - edited paragraph to address this comment. Dtetta (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• There are uncited sentences in the "Standards alignment and interoperability" subsection -- the first paragraph, and the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • In the first paragraph, the first sentence is just a reflection of all of the various standards that have been cited in the article. The second sentence reflects an earlier statement in the “Origins” section that GHG protocol was established in 2001. The last sentence is just an intro to the sentences in the next paragraph, which do have citations. In the last sentence of the second paragraph I was paraphrasing the “Final thoughts” section of the Harvard citation at the end of the previous sentence. I moved that to the end of the paragraph.

    I don't think you need to repeat every single citation that covers anything this paragraph could be seen as referring to, but some citation is needed -- it's common for an article to be edited later by others who may move the paragraph or change its wording, and without a citation it's too easy for the meaning to drift away from where it started. The paragraph is a general statement and I would think a summary article in one of the sources could probably cover it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Made some additional edits, including a citation for the second sentence, and a relocation of the Latham & Watkins citation to the end of the paragraph. Hope that addresses your comment. Dtetta (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think we need to clarify what is meant by materiality means here; I know more or less what it means in an accounting context, but I'm not clear that that's what's meant here, and even if it is it's an unfamiliar term to many readers and a link or some clarification would be helpful.
  • Revised the paragraph where these terms are used to make the concepts clearer.
• "More recently, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) standard incorporates guidance from voluntary carbon market standards. It has approved seven such standards as eligible for use by airlines under that regulatory scheme." The second sentence is unclear; I would have thought "it" refers to CORSIA, but then what does "that regulatory scheme" refer to?
  • CORSIA is a program run by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The “regulatory scheme” is the program that has been developed by ICAO and called “CORSIA”. Revised the text to hopefully clarify this.
• "ISO also has a new standard under development, ISO 14068, that supports net-zero goals. That standard is currently in the preparation stage." The second sentence appears to just repeat the first; can we cut it?
  • Done.
• "It is expected to build on the original net neutrality standard, PAS 2060." Shouldn't PAS 2060 have been mentioned earlier? Is there a suitable link?
  • Good catch! Add a section and citation on PAS 2060.
• A general question: Scope 3 seems like it would automatically double count some emissions, since the vendors in my supply chain emit GHG from facilities that they themselves must measure at the corporate or facility level. Am I misreading this? If not, how is this taken into account when setting targets and reporting? If I and my vendors cooperate on emissions reduction planning, how do we allocate emissions measurements between us if I have to use Scope 3?
  • Good point:) That issue should come out more clearly in the limitations section. WIll work on that and post here when I have addressed it.

    In terms of setting targets and reporting, I think companies realize there is double counting here. But that’s the case throughout these standards. All electricity emissions are Scope 1 for the utilities, but Scope 2 for the companies that use the electricity. I do talk about the double counting issue in general in a later paragraph in this section. Despite double counting, Scope 3 analyses and reporting still help companies work with their supply chains to reduce emissions. Edited the paragraph to address the issue you raise. Let me know if ?? Dtetta (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    I think there's enough about double counting now; more details on how the issues are addressed might be interesting, but the article is quite long already and we're approaching the point where more detail might require an article split per summary style. I think this is fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. I'll read through again and do spotchecks once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Mike Christie, thanks for doing this review, much appreciated! I am not planning to be involved in depth but just wanted to make a comment about your comment regarding having sources in the lead. I think it's better to have sources also in the lead nowadays because there is now the tool of excerpts which transcribes the lead to other articles. Therefore, it's very handy if the lead does have citations in it. See for example the lead of climate change which is transcribed to some other articles, see here. EMsmile (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Dtetta, are you planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie - thanks so much for that review! Apologies for not responding sooner - for some reason I don’t recall getting a notification for your review post, and was intending to give you a week for your review and then check back. I will look through these comment and provide a short response to each, and then work on incorporating them as edits where appropriate. Appreciate your time on this. Dtetta (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No hurry -- as long as I know you're planning to work on it that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Great comments Mike Christie:) Provided italicized responses to each of your bullet points. Addressed nearly all of them - either via edits, a response on the talk page, or both. The bullets that still need to be addressed are the Bioenergy and Sentinel 5P graphics, which I have asked EMsmile and Chidgk1 to help with a response on, and your last comment about Scope 3 emissions. Let me know if you think I have overlooked anything in this response. Dtetta (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't get the ping that you, Dtetta, added for me when you wrote "EMsmile - I believe you inserted this image - any thoughts on this particular issue? Might be best to just delete this graphic from the article.". Don't understand why not. I just saw this because I have this page on my watchlist. I will look into this image now. EMsmile (talk)

Dtetta, I'm going through your replies now and I noticed one grammatical point I want to highlight: you often use a colon to introduce a list where the words before the colon do not form a full sentence. See this page for a more detailed explanation. For example, you have "These are: use of electricity by the community; use of fuel ..."; this should be "These are use of electricity ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that writing tip and website (as well as the Earwig site, which I wasn’t aware of). Will look through the article and correct those instances where a colon is used inappropriately, and then post a brief notice in italics below this post when I believe I have completed that. Dtetta (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrected that instance - also did a page search for ":" and did not see any other instances where I wrote the text. The others all seemed to be in citations or in Main article/See also type listings. Dtetta (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed a few when I read through the article a week ago; I think you're right that they're all fixed now. Sorry, out of time for today; will return to this probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that now - thanks for doing that:) Dtetta (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

All points above are struck except one image question; I would suggest removing that image if you can't resolve the question there, and readding it when that's settled. I will do some spotchecks next, either later today or perhaps tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Christie - really appreciate the time you took to provide such thoughtful and skilled copy editing to the article. It’s definitely more accurate and understandable as a result. Will look for a suitable replacement for the Sentinel 5P image. Dtetta (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks -- footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 23 cites "In the US the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires facility (as opposed to corporate) based reporting of GHG emissions from large industrial facilities. The program covers a total of 41 industrial categories." Verified.
• FN 50 cites "At least one third of global GHG emissions are Scope 2." The link is dead so I can't verify this; can you update the link?

  Verified now the link is fixed, but per the endnote for that chapter this is for 2010 data, so I would add an "As of 2010" to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point, done. Dtetta (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• FN 71 cites "GHG reports from cities have been found to vary widely, and often show lower emissions than those from independent analyses." Verified.
• FN 98 cites "Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) or Guarantees of Origin (GO) document the fact that one megawatt-hour of electricity is generated and supplied to the electrical grid through the use of renewable energy resources." Verified.

Just the one dead link to address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrected that dead link. Dtetta (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A tweak needed to the FN 50 citation. Other than that it's just the image, so if you remove the image for now I'll be able to promote this to GA, and you can re-add the image when you resolve the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Added that “As of” qualifier to FN 50, and removed the Sentinel 5P image. If I don’t hear back from Chidgk1 or Skywalker PL, there are some generic images of satellites observing earth in the wikimedia catalogue, and will probably go with one of them to illustrate the text in that section. Thanks again for all your work on this! BTW, I will be having arthroscopic knee surgery tomorrow, so will probably be be out of communication on Tuesday and Wednesday. Dtetta (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope the surgery goes well! I'm going to go ahead and pass this; congratulations. An interesting and important topic; it's nice to have this at GA level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Christie. Uploaded a replacement satellite image. And thanks to Chidgk1 for all his work in getting this article to the GA level, as well as to EMsmile for her contributions. Dtetta (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)