Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GregJackP Boomer! 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Passed quick-fail check. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1b. "Purports" in the lede is a word to avoid, see WP:ALLEGED. Citation is missing from first quote in lede, and citation #1 is in the middle of a quote - it should be at the end of the quote. "Allegedly" is used in the Synopsis section, Part One (word to avoid). Internal quotation marks inside a quotation should be a single (') not a double (") quotation mark, as in "consensus" inside the quote in the Reception section. "Heavily criticized" in the Reception section is use of a weasel word - should be adjusted or clarified.

2b and 4. Reference 3b supports a misleading statement in the reference. While the exact cite is technically correct, it is cherry-picked and out of context, ignoring the earlier quote from the article - "Predictably, he attacks the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, a plot of global mean temperatures over the past 1,000 years produced by two scientists in 1998 which shows little change for the entire period until suddenly soaring in the 20th century.It is now mostly accepted that the analysis that produced these data was wrong." (emphasis added).

2b. Reference 5 is a dead link - not found error. Not a problem, but you may want to see if you can find another link. 2b. Reference 28 is quoted, but the material in the source does not match the quote in the article exactly. This needs to be corrected. 2b and 4. Reference 33 only mentions the book in passing, and it is not really suitable as a reference in the Reception section. The focus of the reference is on ocean acidification, not on the book. It should be removed, as it exists solely to promote a POV. 2b. Reference 34 is quoted, but the material in the source does not match the quote in the article exactly. This needs to be corrected.

4. Reference 32. Gibbons criticism of Meyer appears to be slanted to put Gibbons in a better light. The source quotes what appears to be a profanity laced tirade - for balance, that fact should be included.