Talk:European Green Deal

Since the article covers an important topic but is classified as a stub, it should be expanded. I propose changing the 'Overview' section to an 'Aims' section that discusses in more detail the goals of the European Green Deal and the timeline within which changes are to be put in place. Furthermore, the fact that Poland has an opt-out clause should be expanded on - this could be done in a new section titled 'Controversies'. In the introduction, a few sentences on the history of the deal in comparison with other similar agreements would help with contextualization. The existing text does not need many edits in my opinion, but there is ample room for expansion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polscidam20 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Green Recovery

In the German WP we now have an article Green Recovery. -- 2001:4DD4:23CF:0:C87F:6DDB:33BB:FDBD (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

I do think that expanding the article is necessary. The goals and the policies should be your priority and thus should be extensively cited (perhaps look for graphs, images). What could be interesting is the timeline negotiations of these goals and policies. Furthermore, you are talking about Poland and the controversy around, although is it the only country? Could you not make a list of governments that already agreed to the plan/ ratified it and see if they stick to it? As of the last point for me, I think that with the historical facts you want to add in the introduction, a small edit on who 'creates' the deal? which politicians or groups or NGO brought the deal up to the EU parliament? Otherwise, I do think that you are doing a great job. SPMChapel (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)spmchapel

SPMChapel, If you have reliable sources for any of that information, that would be great. I found it difficult to expand because I couldn't find enough sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What's up with all this sockpupetry? The Blue Rider 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review (CP)

Poliscidam20, I agree with your plans to expand this article as it is clearly a “stub” with room for improvement. Giving overall aims of the European Green Deal can be use especially because it aids the overall fluency of the article and gives the outline of the main points. Your plan for this expansion seems feasible and I have confidence that it can be done in a scholarly manner - this will definitely benefit the overall quality of this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiaalexandria (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review CP

You are right in saying that this article needs to be expanded. Your idea about the section explaining the main goals of the European green Deal seems to be of high relevance to help the reader understand why this deal is of such importance. However, make sure to use proper referencing when adding this section to the article. Moreover, adding some historical background of the deal in the introduction would indeed help the conceptualization but maybe you could extend this conceptualization to an entire section that would explain how the deal was created and voted by the members and also give some insight about the most important actors of it. Good luck! Halton0310fields (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

peer review

I think your goals for this page make sense and are realizable. Perhaps the article could benefit from some historical background. Regarding the "controversy" section, I would make a corresponding one which includes the countries that agree with the deal/abide by it. I understand that it is implied that all EU member states except Poland do but to an uniformed person stumbling upon this article, it may not be clear. Otherwise, good luck! I think the page will benefit from these edits, as it is a highly relevant subject. Gabz11 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A dreadful article ... content should be largely deleted if not updated

It is very disappointing to see such an important subject so badly written up. It reads like a jumble of uncritical and loosely related press releases from 2019-2021, with hardly any updates since 2021. A number of topics mentioned on this page merit their own pages, notably the recent EU Restoration Law (I just wrote an article on this in ga/Gaeilge and linked it to this page). Splitting the article up would help make it clearer. Personally, if I had free rein, I would delete maybe 80 percent of the content here, and if I had time, create related article pages linking into the Green Deal article. That would be challenging for any editor working on their own, and require a lot of motivation, and knowledge, or capacity to do a fair mount of research.

TGcoa (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Link rot?

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor, and I don't know what the procedure is for editing bad links. At the end of the paragraph about Horizon Europe under the heading New Aims, the link for the last citation is bad. Please tell or show me how to fix that. Thanks. Loupgrru (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

Nature_Restoration_Law redirects here, while these are two related but essentially different EU texts: the Green Deal is a general strategy and the Nature restauration Law is a key text to implement this strategy. Therefore a self-supported wikipedia article relative to the restauration law would probably be most welcome, and therefore the redirection deleted. Olivier LG (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)