Talk:Climate Change Denial/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HughD (talk · contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

GAN review started. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the work on this article. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Checked Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• The two wikilinks from Haydn Washington redirect to Skeptical Science#Projects are questionable, something of an Easter egg; no wikilink or a redlink might be preferable. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Hugh (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Lede should summarize most notable aspects of subject; lede is perhaps a bit long with respect to the body. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• The lede sentence is precious real estate. The author of the foreword is certainly notable, but I'm not sure it deserves placement in the very lede sentence. Hugh (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• The lede paragraph is precious. Respectfully suggest that the background of the authors is perhaps not the very most notable aspect of this book, respectfully suggest perhaps the prize is a candidate for the first paragraph. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of the "Reception" section kind of buries the lede. Obviously one of the authors was a finalist for the Eureka award, because he won it. Also a little odd is the date of qualifying as a finalist is given, but the date of winning the award is not. Respectfully suggest a re-organization of this paragraph. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Hugh (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. ✓ Pass Hugh (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   a (reference section): Checked In-line citation.

   b (citations to reliable sources): Checked Sources reliable. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   c (OR): Checked Hugh (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   d (copyvio and plagiarism): Checked Earwig's Copyvio Detector run; excerpts from sources quoted and reasonable. Hugh (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage. ✓ Pass Hugh (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   a (major aspects): Checked

   b (focused): Checked

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• The "Reception" section is mostly favorable. Were there no other critical reviews, or other criticisms of the book in any of the reviews? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• A summarization of the review from The New American is included without the significant context of the owner/publisher. As most of our readers will not be familiar with this publication, a brief in-text identification of the owner/publisher may be useful to our readers in interpreting the summarization of the review, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Hugh (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• due to the reviewer's topic ban, he is not allowed to comment on that particular aspect of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

2. It is stable. ✓ Pass Hugh (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   No edit wars, etc.: Checked Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. ✓ Pass Hugh (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): Checked

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Checked Cover art and author head shot.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much to all the collaborators for your contributions to this article. This article is good or very near. Placed on hold in hopes of comments or edits in response to the above open points. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Leeway on the deadline offered in deference to lately inactive principle contributor and nominator. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, it has been another month, and Cirt has not edited on Wikipedia in that time—it's been over three months in all since Cirt has edited. I think it's time to close the nomination. Thank you for your work on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Hugh (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all, above, for your help with this. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)