Talk:DeSmog/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Make sure everything in the article is in the Lead (site traffic I think is missing)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   I'm still not entirely comfortable with the large number of opinion sites, but given that the subject is based in the realm of opinion and ideas I'm ok with it.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I feel this is a strong point of this article on a very contentious subject

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are some issues with the article but I feel none of them disqualify it for GA standing. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Review

This is a fairly tight little article so I'll forgo the section by section review and give an overall look.

• In the lead you state it was "styled originally as a blog", what is it styled like now? Why put in the word "originally"? It gives the reader the impression that it is something different than what it originally started as.
• Also in the lead it mentions that Jim Hoggan co-founded the blog. Who was the other founder?
• There's no metion of site traffic in the lead.
• This sentence in the "Mission" sub-section is not well-written:

"In a February 2007 interview with the Vancouver Sun, he described his anger at what he saw as repeated misinformation being put out on behalf of industry interests to mislead the public about the scientific understanding of global warming caused by human activity, which he referred to as "public relations at its sleaziest"."

It's a run on sentence that doesn't effectively convey what I think you intend. Consider this rewrite: "In a February 2007 interview with the Vancouver Sun, Hoggan conveys in anger at industry interests who allegedly mislead the public about the scientific understanding of global warming caused by human activity. He referred to this alleged misrepresentation of the facts as, "public relations at its sleaziest".

I think you need to include the fact that he is alleging misrepresentation. That will help keep the article a little more balanced. I think you do a good job with staying out of POV issues. I would just include that his opinions are that, opinions and allegations.

• The "Traffic" section is two one-sentence paragraphs, could this be combined into on paragraph and expanded a bit? Adding info on the demographics of people who visit the site perhaps if that info is available. Just a suggestion.
• A concern I have is about the credibility of the sourcing. I count 6 sources that are attributed as opinion pieces. I would contend that the following references are opinion/editorial pieces: ref 4 about Al Gore and railroad service, and ref 5 is posted on the FP Comment page. To that there are 3 refs cited to the blog itself. This equates to 11 out of 18 sources as being either opinion articles or sourced directly from the blog. Granted the whole premise of the blog is opinions about scientific data, but in the pantheon of credible sources these sources rank towards the bottom. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the sourcing. I'm not closed off to promoting the article with the current sourcing but I would like to know what efforts you have made regarding the sourcing and if there is other, less opinion-based sources that could be used.
• In reading through some of the sourcing it seems as though many of the sources are speaking about Hoggan, his work with the Suzuki foundation, or his book, with a passing comment about his website. That's a concern as well. Again I'd like your thoughts on that.
• I think the writing is good, you're format and layout is solid, I think you've covered all the subjects and you've been balanced to give both sides of the argument, which is really good and a strong point of the article. I'd like to interact with you regarding the sources, which I see as the big hinderance to me passing it right now. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, first of all, thank you very much for the comprehensive and helpful review. I'll try to address all your concerns:

• I believe that the editor who added the "originally" text did so because he interpreted the sources to indicate that the site is now more of a non-profit project than just a blog. I don't necessarily agree with that and am willing and able to change the text if you feel that is necesary.

This isn't a big deal, but it does leave the reader wondering what it is now if it was originally a blog. I'll leave that to your discretion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The sources don't state who the other co-founder is. I don't know what to do about that other than emailing Mr. Hoggan and asking him, which I am willing to do, although I know that is OR.

That is odd, usually if there is a co-founder then both are mentioned. No need to email the man but I would mention in the article that sources do not indicate who the other founder is. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done as suggested. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I placed a mention of the site's traffic in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Alexa info from the lead. Not only is it jargon (which shouldn't be in a GA at all), it's also incomprehensible jargon. There's no way to tell from the article (or the Alexa article) what the number means, either in relative or absolute terms. If a reader can't even tell whether a rank of 25,000 means more or less traffic than a rank of 2,500, it's meaningless and doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was why we included a link to the Alexa article, so that the reader can click over to it if they need more information? I'll leave it up to the GA reviewer to decide if it should be mentioned in the lede or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, jargon needs to be explained in the article. What Alexa rank is, and what it means, needs to be clear in the article. But the link doesn't do any good either - the Alexa article is no help. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then go fix the Alexa article. I disagree, however, because the Alexa article does explain the concerns that some have about it. Also, the Alexa rankings are included in the website infobox templates and are used throughout Wikipedia. I've asked for an independent at the reliable sources noticeboard [1], but again, I'd like to hear the GA reviewers opinion on including Alexa rankings. I personally don't see the problem. Alexa is currently the generally accepted standard for independent measure of site traffic. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then go fix the Alexa article?!! I prefer not to edit topics I don't understand. Inasmuch as I (a) have no idea what Alexa rankings mean, and (b) have no reliable sources handy that explain what Alexa rankings me, I see no value in taking your "advice". And do try to lay off the knee-jerk hostility and rudeness. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, the GA reviewer (myself) has no extra claim to authority over granting or declining GA status than anyone else. I appreciate Guettarda's comments and I welcome other editors to interject where I may have missed something. I will make the GA decision but my decision can be rebutted and taken to GA reassessment. Regarding the use of jargon, I tend to error on the side of explanation wherever possible. A link is fine but a sentence on what Alexa is and why it's important would be better. Again balance must be given, we can't bog article's down with explanations of every word that may not be in common English usage. I welcome discussion on this point. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the discussion above, Alexa appears to be the only freely available, independent source for site traffic currently available. If Alexa says that it's rankings get progressively less robust as site rankings go lower, then I think it's fine to include a sentence on that in the article. For that reason, perhaps the ranking shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added an explanation on Alexa's ranking accuracy. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding those editor's objections to the Alexa and Quantcast rankings, as those two sources are used in about 1,000 other Wikipedia articles and they're making no effort to remove them from any articles except this one. Anyway, I'll move on with answering the rest of your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see...(a) this is the only GAN I'm paying any attention to that uses Alexa ranking, so (b) when you added it to the lead, I looked at it and realised it made no sense to me, which led me to (c) read the Alexa Internet and Alexa Toolbar articles, which were no help. So (d) I removed it from the lead, commented on the article's talk page, and (e) was greeted by a barrage of hostility and rudeness. As for other articles - other crap exists all over Wikipedia. When someone pays me a salary to edit, then I'll start caring about the state of "other" pages. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Alexa and Quantcast info, as the majority of editors appeared to agree that it shouldn't be included. Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I changed the sentence as you suggested. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Continuing on, I added demographic information as requested. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the demographic information, as it came from Alexa and Quantcast. Cla68 (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sources: I'm fairly confident that this article contains most, if not all, of the available sources that mention this blog. Besides Google, I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand. I believe enough information in the article comes from non-opinion sources like the Vancouver Sun articles to establish the article as not based primarily on editorials or opinion columns. I used opinion columns to add more detailed information on the site's content, mission, and how it has been mentioned in the media. Because this is an advocacy blog, and thus is fighting in a war of ideas, I don't think it is unusual that many of the mentions of this blog in reliable sources are in opinion pieces. Cla68 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sources and Hoggan: Hoggan, to a large extent, is this blog. This blog is an extension of his mission to combat what he apparently feels is dishonesty involved in some of the global warming scepticism. He is the driving force behind the blog and its public face. Therefore, many of the media mentions concentrate on him. We have to use what the sources give us, and the sources make it clear that Hoggan and this blog are joined at the hip. I believe there is sufficient sourcing, however, to show that there is more to the topic than Hoggan, including the work by the other writers involved with the blog. Cla68 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s copied over from here mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reread the article and feel that it is better. There is still a one-sentence paragraph in the "Mission and audience" sub-section. Other than that it's a pretty short but concise article that I think is better for the review process. I'll pass it to GA, keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)