Talk:Under2 Coalition
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
editThis article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anthos16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback
editHi, your instructor asked that I assess this article for feedback.
Generally, I find the article to be a reasonable Start-class article on the topic: it provides, the necessary minimal information I need to understand it, with a brief introductorary paragraph, minimal description of the context of the agreement, and the list of signers. However, if I wanted to research the agreement further, I don't think the article provides the reader sufficient context. Here are a few initial comments in reading/reviewing the article:
- First, I do not understand the various reactions and opinions related to the agreement. You only talk about one, American politician's opinion about the agreement. Wouldn't there be reaction from more jurisdictions? Wouldn't some governments respond to the action? Are other press organizations, or is this action just something that promotes California's role in mitigating climate change? I would think that at least some reporting at the time or afterwards would cover such topics.
- Second, for an international relations article, the perspective is very American-centric: the emphasis on the California partnership, and a lack of sources from elsewhere in the world, seems like you are missing something in your research. (There is more international press via Google News Search
- The focus on popular press sources, seems to not be looking beyond a simple Google search. A search in Google Scholar finds at least a couple more academic articles: I would strongly recommend using your library's databases. There is more coverage of this, I promise: and you are missing it.
- There isn't much that helps contextualize the agreement in a landscape of similar climate agreements: what comes before and after it? How does it respond or interact with other agreements? Can you use Wiki-links to these other articles about agreements or concerns from different countries not addressing climate change (cough, cough, United States government being roadblocked by a Republican congress).
- Source #5, the Gillis Source from the New York Times, doesn't support the claim of the sentence its used in: you don't need to prove that the IPCC report made a finding, rather, you need to show that the MOU responds to that finding. I didn't spot check any other sources: that was my first, but it doesn't support your discussion of this particular topic.
All and all, these particular points of feedback, alongside the general read of the article suggest that you need to do deeper research, that provides more context (likely broken into several different sections) to ensure that you are covering the full depth of the topic. If you have any more questions, or need clarifcations on my feedback: please let me know, Sadads (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)