Talk:Watts Up With That?/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my review and made a few very minor corrections. This one is unusual. The subject is controversial, and the article had recently been merged elsewhere, which was pretty unanimously rejected and undone by the community. Other than that, the content seems stable. The article is also under a 1RR restriction, and it is loosely related to an arbitration case that is nearing conclusion. On top of that, it appears that most of the editors may soon be topic-banned!

Given all that, it may be tempting to quick-fail. I will not do that, because if this article, the peer review, all the good-faith effort to improve the article based on the peer review, and the history were viewed in a vacuum the article appears to be pretty close to good. The subject is only loosely related to the arbitration case, so I would not expect this article to become unstable in the near future. I don't know if an editor is left or willing to work on this, but I think it can be fixed. I will hold this article for up to a week. Aaron north (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

N After about 5 days, not much has been done and more problems were discovered. There's not much of a chance that this article will pass, so I'm failing it now. Aaron north (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

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:

   Given that this is a blog with a focus on the skeptic POV on climate change, NPOV is obviously important for this article. However, this is an article about the blog, not necessarily the issues argued and raised by the blog, so we need not balance the blog's opinions with opposing opinions, we should instead make sure the blog itself is fairly represented, along with criticisms of the blog. In my opinion, this has been done adequately. This article consistently avoids using problematic language, and instead recites a collection of relevant facts, using quotes when opinions and analysis about the blog is needed. Descriptions, history, and opinions about the blog are portrayed with a NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   very lively history (including an excessively bold merge that was reverted!), but I wouldn't call this unstable.

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

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• As noted in the peer review, the history section seems to be lacking content about the creator. How and why did the blog start? Do secondary sources exist to flesh this section out? Is there an article written about Watts somewhere to help with this? I will probably check to see if such a source exists if no one else does in a week. If there are no secondary sources to expand on the creator and beginnings of the blog, I'll cross this out as a requirement and not hold this against the article.
• Under temperature records, this topic seems to be only loosely applicable to the two paragraphs, neither of which really have anything to do with one another except that temperature records are involved. I think the layout should be improved by giving each paragraph its own, more specifically descriptive section. (perhaps something like "Temperature Records Projects" and the second topic referring somehow to the GISS error?)

Y Aaron north (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraph under Projects appears to be insufficiently sourced. We don't need much, just a verification that these projects are in fact discussed on the blog. There is little or no analysis here and a secondary source would not likely exist for all of this, so a primary source would be fine. (Blogs are typically a lousy source per WP policy, but if we merely need to verify that something is regularly or occasionally discussed on a blog, what better source is there than articles talking about the project on that blog?)
• Is the very last sentence of the article (photo credit from Fox News of oil rig) relevant? Looks like trivia to me when it is listed under "reception".
• N New issue, the entire "Temperature Records" section appears to be suspect, the sources currently do not support the idea that WUWT readers discovered the error. See the discussion below. Aaron north (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if a free or fair use image of Watts exists, but if it does it might be a useful addition, probably under history.

Many thanks to Aaron north for taking the trouble to write a very helpful and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. I'll do my best to try to deal with as many of these as possible this week, though I'm a little bit concerned that a blank may be drawn regarding sources. We'll see what turns up. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is fixed. I think you mentioned that you will be working on a new history section to expand on the 1st paragraph of the lead, but just in case, I wanted to mention that the lead (specifically, the 1st paragraph) is supposed to be a summary. I cant contain significant information that is not in the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the history section. I see that another issue has come up below -- that some of the sources in the article are tenuous. I wonder if this means that it won't be possible for GA status to be reached? Jprw (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If a secondary source isn't available for the history of the creator and the blog (and I can believe that, Watts and this blog aren't exactly part of the general pop culture), then a primary source can be used, if used carefully. A secondary source is always preferable, but primary sources can be used to give a basic biography when necessary. When you get into how or why someone did something (like how or why the blog was started), that starts to get into analysis and you have to be more careful. If the source says "I did x because of y", you have to write that "this person said he did x because of y" (with better prose than that quick example), rather than just stating "the person did x because of y" like it was a verified fact from a reliable source. Aaron north (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the GA review goes, I do suspect at this point that it won't get there, but I'm in no rush to fail it. Its not like this is a deeply flawed article that should be quick-failed, and I don't know if an editor is willing to put in a lot of time on it in the next few days or not. If it does fail, at least this process could serve as a guide to improve the article. Aaron north (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)