Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

The Real Global Warming Disaster

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review • Subsequent individual GAR review
Result: Delist per unresolved concerns and comments below. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting community reassessment because after the article passed GAR, within hours an individual reassessment was started. The individual reassessment is applying the wrong criteria to the article and is treating as a peer review process of the underlying science treated in the book that is the subject of the GAR. The reassessment reviewer has been sanctioned in the past for editing WP:FRINGE and I feel that the reviewer is now once again attempting to misapply WP:FRINGE and use it as good article criteria. The article treats all critiques of the book in a neutral way; there are no notable critiques omitted, and no non-notable critiques included. The synopsis follows WP:BOOK, and the Good Article criteria are met. I would like the community to look at this so that the article is not delisted based on one editor's opinion that may be a bit too biased against the underlying content of the book. Minor4th 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an idiot when it comes to this subject matter, but I am going to give my view on the other critrria. There has been protection and edit wars in the past 2 weeks, so without your addition of the POV tags, I still believe the article might not be quite stable yet for GA. Try again in about a month or so. Images, they all are freely licensed except for the book cover. I think there is too many images in the second part, mostly of things that are not remotely related to the book, such as a shot of Copenhagen. I would remove those, but keep the graphs. If we need to see what the guys look like, just click the links to their bios. Other than that, it passes the other criteria. To me, it is honestly 50/50 when it comes to having it stay at GA or not, but if those slight improvements are made, then I will be happy to see the article remain as GA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think too much should be read into the NPOV tagging. Nor do I think waiting a month is necessarily needful in any case. No comment on the substantive issues raised, as I stay out of all Global Warming content areas, but it is interesting that a review was raised so quickly after the article passed. Perhaps someone who has no dog in the fight would have been a far better choice to do the initial assessment, and certainly to do a reassessment. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does one know whether one has a dog in the fight? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The article fails to be neutral because it gives undue weight to a fringe theory inappropriately. I have explained in the individual reassessment how to fix that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delist SA should not be trying to assess this article given his obvious bias and POV mark nutley (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reasons stated in request for community reassessment. Hoping some editors who are totally uninvolved in the global warming topic can weigh in . Minor4th 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delist" - The delisting proposal is an attempt to push fringe Wikipedia SPOV policy by bashing a NPOV article. The article is sufficient for "Good" criteria rating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In order for this entire good-article process to mean anything, it will be necessary to get the opinions of people outside the climate-change arena. All the more so since several of the above comments are personal commentary and attacks, and do not address the merits of the article as they apply to good article criteria. MastCell Talk 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems to me that ScienceApologist's reassessment was flawed as it appears to be a review of the book rather than a review of the article about the book. The individual reassessment is also incomplete as no decision to keep or delist was made and the reassessment is incomplete, not having been closed. Hence the article should be kept at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the initial reviewer that passed the article for GA status, just hours before SA began his individual reassessment. I believe that outside editors (of the CC/GW area) should be involved in the process and that their opinions should be given more weight than those of us that have been involved in the area. I would recommend that those editors look both the initial assessment, the individual reassessment, the block log for myself and the block log for SA. The last two items are due to the fact that SA is asking us to believe that since he believes the article to be written about a fringe subject instead of the review of a book, he basically believes that the book should be peer-reviewed before it can get to GA status. This is not supported by policy, and it is possible that this policy area is honestly misunderstood by SA (which is shown in the last entry above). I concur with Jezhotwells comment above. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good articles can indeed, be written about non-peer-reviewed books. Democracy_(Judge_Dredd_storyline) is, quite likely, not a peer-reviewed book. Werner_Erhard_(book) quite likely is not very scientific. The criterion for "good article" is that the article meets WP GA standards, and nothing more. This is a matter of process - if the person demurring about what "GA" means wishes to change the process, he is surely welcome to seek consensus for the change in the process. Collect (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comments. I agree with the chorus so far that the individual reassessment begun by ScienceApologist conflated criticism of the content of the book with criticism of the article about the book. In terms of process, the article is thus currently correctly listed as a GA. However, I'd like to remind everyone that the purpose of GAR is not to criticize individuals or the reviewing process to date, but to decide whether an article meets the GA criteria or not.
In this case, there are some GA issues that editors might like to consider - hopefully of a nature that can be agreed upon and fixed within the timescale of this community reassessment.
  1. First it seems to me that the lead does not stand alone as an adequate summary of the article (1b). The first paragraph appears to summarize the argument made in the book, rather than the synopsis given in the article. For example, the events leading up to Copenhagen conference are not covered. (As an aside, the timing of the publication of the book is likely significant and may be worth addressing.)
  2. Second, also unmentioned so far I think, there are some word usage issues to consider (1b). The lead invokes many synonyms for "says", and some editorializing, such as "consistently criticises". Word's need to be chosen with great care in the synopsis too, in order to present a neutral summary ("Booker then identifies..." may suggest insight to the reader).
  3. One of ScienceApologist's points is that the synopsis is rather long in relation to the whole article. Given the agreement above that the article is about the book rather than the argument made in the book, it follows that primary source material should be minimized as much as it is in a plot summary of a work of fiction. This is a 3a issue: the article is not part of the debate on global warming, it is about a book. (There is also a minor 3b issue: the book apparently has an epilogue - is this covered?)
  4. The most substantial issue raised by ScienceApologist is that the Reception section has problems with regard to neutrality and due weight (4). One of the really difficult things to do in a Reception section is select appropriate reviews, and to represent these reviews fairly, with due weight and suitable quotes. For example, the language selected from Philip Ball's review is colourful: "queer", "polemic", "bunk". In contrast, Peter Hitchen's review is represented with authoritative and balanced language. Yet his review ends, "This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West... while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing."
I hope discussion of such concerns will lead to article improvement, so that the listing of the article as a GA is endorsed enthusiastically for meeting the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the following talkback message on the article creator's talkpage - I'm unsure if he was aware of this discussion.
"Jprw, you may want to look at this page, with an interest in addressing concerns that neutral, uninvolved editors are bringing up. I would invite your attention specifically to the comments of Zscout370 and Geometry guy especially, as both offer concrete examples of how to improve the article and retain GA status." Hopefully he will address the issues raised. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some confusion in this discussion. Minor4th and GregJackP are acknowledged IRL friends, but neither is the primary author of the article and so the initial review was legitimate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question Is it not true that the two of you are friends in RL per the comments made during the SPI? If so, then yes this needs to be done by someone totally unrelated to any of the above and also should not be done by a friend. I can put up a dif for the SPI case but since it was blanked as a courtesy I think it would be rude of me to supply the dif at this time. Comments please, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Minor4th and I know each other in RL. We have not discussed this, nor did I ask him to put this up for community reassessment. We generally have the same views on the lack of neutrality by a certain group in this area, and their efforts to silence anything that does not toe the CC/GW line. The reassessment is about the article, as Geometry guy noted. If you object, please state your objections. If you don't like the fact that I have friends in RL that are also on Wiki, I would suggest that you get over it, unless you want to propose a rule that all friendships or acquaintances of editors be disclosed. You may do so at the Village Pump, and to set a good example, perhaps list all the editors on Wiki that you've either corresponded with off-Wiki or otherwise know. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to understand your position: Previous actions by SA are highly relevant, but when your relationship with Minor4th is brought up we should concentrate on the article only? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where there is a Wikipedia policy being violated by having a RL friend. SA's previous actions deal with the fact that he does not understand WP:FRINGE - and he inappropriately tries to apply that here. I have no problem stating that Minor4th is a RL friend, and have done so on a number of occasions. It's not a secret. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to have as many friends as you want, online and offline. However, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a concern. It's certainly less drama-prone to let uninvolved editors perform things like GA reviews in contentious areas. But what I am primarily concerned with is your shift in argument. It's always just the the article that should matter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, I probably wasn't very clear on what my concern was initally, but it has always been about the article in my opinion. The point about SA was that he was applying an incorrect standard to the article, and I believe that he honestly believes that he is correct. The point is that the area of WP:FRINGE has been difficult for him to get a handle on, thus the sanctions. It's not that I feel that he is acting maliciously, or is not acting in good faith - it is that fairness to the article requires that we apply the correct standards, and this article is about the book, not the science. On the WP:COI issue, it is not applicable. I don't have any of the listed conflicts with the article, and I'm pretty sure that Minor4th doesn't either. GregJackP Boomer! 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)::I'm sorry but there is a big difference in having a RL friend promote an article of yours than me disclosing my friendships of editors I email with. You both disclosed your were RL friends that edit article of common interest. I have no problem with that at all. But taking your article instead of letting someone more neurtral do it, is wrong in my opinion. If I had a RL friend editing here I would not allow that person to judge my work in this manner, just for the record, as far as I'm aware none of my friends are editors. I'd like to hear from others about this, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What article of mine? Are you talking about John S. Loisel? Or United States v. Lara? Or Bryan v. Itasca County? Or Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe? I did not create nor edit this article. It is not "my" article. I had not even seen the article until I reviewed it for GA status. Please retract that misinformation, and an apology would be warranted also. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jprw was the writer and requester of the GA. GregJackP was the second reviewer. I did the individual reassessment which was challenged by Minor4th. There doesn't seem to be anything untoward about this. The community review is ongoing and Geometry Guy has put forth some very important points which need addressing for the GA status to remain. This discussion, however, is irrelevant to this matter. Therefore, I've archived it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for closing the tangent: I would have removed it to the talk page if I had been online.)
  • Further comments. I have had more time to read the article again, and it looks good thanks to improvements made. I have a few further comments on the level of detail:
    The book and the article play a bit fast and loose with the credentials of the scientists involved. I hope we can rise above the discourse of creationists who use non-biologists questions about evolution to throw the science into doubt. In this case, Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist, so he should not be represented as the state of the art climate science at the time. Similarly, Frederick Seitz is a solid-state physicist.
    I have now read the review of Philip Ball, and am unconvinced that the article represents it fairly. It is a meme that those who support the scientific consensus ridicule those who do not, and selective quotation can propagate that meme. However, Wikipedia should not do so. The latter parts of the review provide specific criticisms of specific claims made in the book. Wikipedia should present the reader with such views. It is then up to the reader to decide. Geometry guy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit concerned by how the listing in The Scotsman is handled. The review itself seems to me to be rather throwaway as it's really a discussion of a year's worth of books, but its quoted almost in its entirety at Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we're doing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article could leave it as Sir John Lister-Kaye chose the book as one of his "books of the year" but that would be a little misleading since the review actually includes a criticism of the book's credibility. What do you think? Minor4th 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, The Scotsman asked him what was "the most engrossing reads of 2009", it seems. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. GJP should not have assessed this article in the first place, due to bias - he is heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and this article is part of that case. The article itself is not good - it is far too "in Universe" - far too much of it essentially goes along with the book; it is not really an article about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain more specifically why/where/how the article does not meet the GA criteria, in your opinion? GAR is not a vote. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe William is talking about the synopsis which is an assessment with which I agree. However, proposing specific edits may be seen to be in violation of temporary measures that are in place to try to calm disputes in this area. I think sticking to your specific actions are good for the time being, Geometry Guy. I'll make some suggestions here below through to the first section of the synopsis. After changes are made to help address the "in universe issues" described below, I'll continue with the rest of the article:
  1. The phrase Booker interweaves the science of the subject with its political consequences in the lead is problematic. Booker's discussion of the "science" is criticized by reliable sources and so simply stating that he interweaves the "science of the subject with its political consequences" is not WP:NPOV since there is a legitimate claim to be made that Booker actually does not really handle the science of the subject properly. Rewording this phrase may alleviate the problem.
  2. The phrase in the lead Booker also postulates that global warming is not supported by a significant number of the world's climate scientists is somewhat artful, but needs some further work to avoid the obvious WP:COATRACK. The statement being made is akin to "Mary postulates that most people do not speak any language." In his book, Booker clearly states that this "postulate" he makes is contrary to the prevailing understanding of the situation. This needs to be much more clear.
  3. In the first section of the synopsis, the sentence, "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph[8] showing changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentration over the last 11,000 years." needs work. There is no context provided for the reader as to why Booker chose Singer and Avery and why 11,000 years was what Booker chose. However, it's unclear as to whether this is a useful synopsis anyway. Why not just say that Booker borrows heavily from Singer and Avery, identify their ideology (which Booker explicitly discusses) and leave it at that?
  4. The next sentence, "In his analysis, rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the 1970s led scientists such as Paul Ehrlich to postulate that the earth, as a result of the greenhouse effect, may have been heating up or cooling down, either of which could have potentially disastrous consequences." is entirely equivocal and confusing. Basically, it's claiming that Booker made an "analysis" that concentrations led scientists to postulate warming or cooling. Really? That does not follow from my reading of the book. First of all, I don't see an "analysis", but rather a story of how scientists were confused. That's it. The claim Booker makes in this part of the book is that the scientists didn't have their acts together, but certain scientists that he doesn't like, such as Paul Ehrlich, jumped to conclusions. He's trying to make a claim that the environmental movement skewed the science by yelling loudly about preliminary findings. Fine. But that sentence doesn't illustrate this at all.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a serious question to ScienceApologist -- do you really not see how your proposed edits are advancing a POV against the content of the book? Once again, it is not the place of this article to critique the content of the book or comment on the reliability of Booker's conclusions or analyze the content in any way other than to report what third party reliable sources have said about the book. Minor4th 05:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm criticizing specific wordings in the article which are not NPOV because they implicitly or explicitly advance claims which certain reviewers dispute or, worse, summarize the book in a way that does not follow the text. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is dealt with in the reception and reviews sections, not in the synopsis. The synopsis is just a summary of what's in the book, right or wrong, good or bad, whether you like it or don't. Whatever criticism of the underlying content there may be can be included in the reviews section so long as it's coverage from a reliable source. You cannot discount the content of the book in the synopsis though. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read below. Synopses can be non-neutral. For example, "The Creationist Truth is a book which describes how evil, atheistic scientists have been under the power of Satan for 150 years and have caused most major world wars and genocides through a propagation of the demonic theory of evolution." Not a neutral synopsis, but rather an in-universe synopsis. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "in universe" issues in this article. Minor4th 05:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply asserting this will not make it so. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And simply declaring an "in universe" issue does not create such an issue. If there's an issue, please state it specifically so that it can be dealt with rather than throwing out blanket characterizations without identifying anything specific. I have no idea what the "in universe" issue would be, but I'm open to correction if you identify something I've overlooked. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- mostly @ ScienceApologist and William Connolley -- I think these issues are more along the lines of content questions that can be dealt with on the talk page of the article, and they are not really issues with the good article criteria. I understand that NPOV is part of the good article criteria, but no one is suggesting that criticism of the book should not be included or that all notable views should not be represented. I think the only issue in that regard is keeping the criticism in the proper area of the article rather than rewriting the book by including critique in the synopsis. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Please take this discussion about content to the talk page. Minor4th 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I showed above how it is. And unless it's fixed, the article should be delisted. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NPOV is not achieved merely by letting each viewpoint have its say. The neutral point of view is a point of view, the one Wikipedia adopts in its articles. It is crucial to this viewpoint that primary source material is both clearly attributed to the primary source, and not implicitly endorsed or refuted by choice of language, but only with explicit reference to secondary sources. Getting the synopsis right is crucial to NPOV: it does not suffice to have counterbalancing sections on support or criticism (indeed such sections are often discouraged as inappropriate).
There is no problem in this article with primary source attribution, but the wording needs careful consideration. The specific concerns made by ScienceApologist above need to be addressed by specific responses. In some cases a tweak in the wording is all that may be needed. Changes to the synopsis which make Wikipedia dismiss the book are just as unacceptable as sentences in the synopsis which appear to support its worldview. Geometry guy 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ScienceApologist's specific points -- I am not the article creator and have not actually edited this article, but I do not believe that anything ScienceApologist has raised is sufficient to kick this from the GA list. He has not actually specified anything that is not worded neutrally, and that is the GA criteria he is relying on. I also believe that he is still trying to review the content of the book within the synopsis, just as he was when he did an individual reassessment that wound up here. Anyway, here's my quick take on SA's specific points about the synopsis (and I do actually think it's a bad idea to legitimize him by responding to his points that are still applying the wrong GA criteria, which is why I thought these issues are better addressed elsewhere. This could go on forever).

  1. Booker is talking about the science. Whether you and your favorite scientists think Booker handles the science properly does not diminish the fact that it is indeed science that he's talking about. Are you saying the book is not about science?
  2. This is not COATRACK, it is the major premise/conclusion of the book and is sourced to the book. I think the problem is you don't agree with Booker's conclusions and you want to make sure readers of this article do not have an opportunity to agree with his conclusions either. Whether Booker is right or wrong, it's what he says in the book and that is what is being reported here.
  3. The specific conclusion that Booker draws is of course relevant and necessary in the synopsis. I'm not understanding why you think the synopsis should include the details you suggest regarding the number of years or why you think it's necessary to identify the ideologies of other scientists unless of course you wish to discredit the other scientists and by proxy discredit Booker. Again, that is not the purview of a good article review.
  4. The word analysis may be confusing in this context -- I suggest the article creator and nominator tighten up the language a bit in this section. I do not, however, agree that it somehow violates NPOV, nor do any of the other sections.

In short, although you have stated that these are NPOV concerns within GAR criteria, you have not stated or made any explication about how any of these sections are not neutral or are worded in a biased way (other than you don't agree with the underlying conclusions). The book synopsis is not the place to give contrasting opinions outside the scope of the book; it is a summary of what is actually in the book. Minor4th 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick responses:
  1. Booker is talking about his perspective on the science. This is not clear in that wording which may indicate to the reader that Booker is trying to present the science as it might appear in a climate science text, for example. I.e., not NPOV.
  2. The coatrack is there because it incorrectly assumes as fact a statement which is an opinion. Linking to the relevant article doesn't quite resolve the issue. I.e., not NPOV.
  3. I'm suggesting the specific conclusion is arbitrary to the reason Booker wrote the book. The specific conclusion, however, is a talking point elsewhere. It's easy for this to be seen as a propaganda insertion coatrack for that reason, even if it wasn't intended that way. I.e., not NPOV.
  4. The wording indicates that Booker analyzes when certain reviewers don't think he does this. I.e., not NPOV.
In short, not NPOV.
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist
  • The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. Instead, the lead goes into detail describing the contents of the book. This level of detail belongs to the body of the article, not the lead.
  • In the body, too much room is still spent describing the contents of the book. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about a book, not a collection of quotations from the book. Example: A quote of a quote:

Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text".

Is the quote of the quote a fact, or is it simply what Booker claims to be a fact?
  • Comment
@WMC: I assume this means that you won't be participating in any manner in GAN or GAR's because you are "heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change?" Otherwise I "reject" your comment as being obviously inappropriate and unsupported by policy.
@SA: Quicker re-responses:
  1. True, that is what his book is about, his perspective. That is what the article is also about in part, his book. Whether his science is accurate or not is not relevant, it is about his book, not the science.
  2. Assert the facts about the book - not the science. Your comment completely mis-states WP:ASF. The fact is that Booker states particular items in his book. The article reports those facts as stated in the book, therefore it is NPOV.
  3. LOL. Article is on book, not science.
  4. Ditto.
In short, argue about the book, not the science. Where in the article does it state something about the book that is not accurate? GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quickest responses:
  1. The text right now can be read that it is not just his perspective.
  2. There is a reading of that sentence which would assume it is a fact that most scientists don't believe the consensus about AGW.
  3. LOLOL. Article is stating a choice of presentation by making the presentation. Not needed.
  4. "Analyzed" is simply not NPOV.
ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for article nominator -- i do think the synopsis is a bit lengthy and overly detailed. I would trim the synopsis and make it read more like a summary. I still think there are too many graphics as well. Minor4th 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

edit
  • It's been two weeks and movement is not happening on Geometry Guy's recommendations or my recommendations. Recommend delisting until someone wants to take on the project. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficient unto the day The default would be to "keep listed" absent any consensus otherwise, despite the eagerness of the proponent of delisting otherwise. Almost all those for delisting argue that they do not like the book, which is not a strong reason to delist an article about the book. Collect (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAR process. As the workings of community GAR have been raised, let me take a moment to clarify. GAR aims to determine, after discussion (during which article improvement may also take place), whether an article meets the good article criteria or not. The outcome is that an article which meets the criteria is listed as a GA and one which does not is not. Only when it remains unclear whether an article meets all of the GA criteria is the GAR closed without action, in which case the pre-existing GA status is retained: this isn't the default outcome, and is most commonly used not to list articles when their GA status is in doubt. Keeping articles listed which may not meet the criteria is not a desirable outcome of GAR, but is more like a stay of execution, giving the article the benefit of the doubt in the hope that further improvement will occur: any failure to meet any GA criterion is a reason to close as "delist", and if the article meets all of the criteria, it is preferable to close as "keep". Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I were closing this reassessment now, I could clearly close it as "delist" on the grounds that the lead is still not a summary of the article (1b). I would not even have to express an opinion on whether it is neutral (4), broad (3a) or focused (3b) to do so. Manifestly failing one criterion suffices to delist an article. The reassessment remains open out of politeness and hopefulness that with many editors contributing, GA concerns will be addressed, and the encyclopedia will be improved. Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The lede has been appreciably shortened/tightened. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that didn't really address the issues above, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue about the lede, which I regard as a valid possible issue, has been addressed. The issue that no book which someone considers "fringe" can ever be a GA topic is not what I consider a valid argument here. YMMV. There are, in fact, many GAs about books which represent odd thinking, but no one suggests we purge the GA list of them that I can find. Collect (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead has improved. It now adequately summarizes the article, including the book's critical reception. Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are there any other noteworthy reviews or critical reaction to the book which aren't mentioned in the article? Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I did the initial GA assessment, I checked, and all of the reviews shown on a Google search were included in the article at that time. That is dated though, and I can't state for sure that other reviews had not subsequently written, or that Google did not pick them all up. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how noteworthy these are, but here are a couple that are not mentioned in the article:
  1. National Review Book Service: [1]
  2. Ruth Dudley Edwards/Salisbury Review: [2],[3]
  3. Scottish Field Magazine: [4]

Minor4th 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked for reviews. The Daily Express covered the book with predictable results (Climate change - The most costly scientific blunder in history); quotes include "Last year, our politicians were even debating the Climate Change Bill during the worst October snowfall London had seen for years." Still it could be used to indicate what the UK right wing tabloid press made of the book (e.g. "With the pace and intrigue of an espionage thriller, he analyses the political and scientific shenanigans...") This may be preferable to Salisbury Review, at least.
The NRBS review ends with "add to cart", which is not particularly inspiring, and the Scottish Field review is 5 lines long.
It is a pity that there seem to be almost no reviews by science journals and magazines, as that would help the article a lot. I only found a review by "Chemistry World" (as quoted by Continuum) but it is somewhat short and superficial, concluding "The only quibble is that the author doesn't make clear that consensus is not a scientific concept, but a political one." Geometry guy 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. Many thanks to Collect for tightening the lead. I continue to have reservations, but am hopeful that good will to improve the article will continue. Let me then make some more detailed comments.
    • The background section is entirely primary source material. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I believe that Booker wrote the book with good intentions, but it would be really nice to have a secondary source supporting those good intentions, rather than his own words. Instead we have a block quote from Booker's own Telegraph article. Even with my proposed shortening of the infobox (which I believe is sensible, but is not part of the GA criteria), the block quote still spills over into the Synopsis section on a moderately wide browser window, giving the impression that it is from the book. There is too much weight given here to the author's own preview of his book. If no secondary sources are forthcoming, I suggest trimming it back to prose and inline quotations, making clear that this is the author's own statement of the background and intentions.
    • In part one, the text is sandwiched between two images. This is generally discouraged and could be resolved by a paragraph break before "Booker contends that 1988 was a key year..." Also the reconstructed temperature graph starts before the subsection title: I used to prefer this style myself, but have been advised it is contrary to WP:ACCESS. This is not a GA criterion, but I have suggested a possible organization of the images in the edit history.
    • The Further Reading section doesn't seem justified: Booker's own previous book could be cited in the Background, and Montfort's book doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopedic recommendation. "See also"s could be trimmed as well: articles previously linked need not appear. See WP:LAYOUT for advice.
    • In this contentious area, stating that someone is a "scientist" can suggest expertise in an area where expertise may be lacking. Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist and Frederick Seitz is a solid state physicist. On the other hand Bert Bolin is a meteorologist and Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist. These scientists have differing views, but some have more specific expertise than others and they should not be presented as an amorphous view of "scientists". (Note that the experts are not necessarily those who support climate change: I am not trying to make a political point here.)
    • It may be premature to list prose concerns if more significant changes are necessary, but I think we are at the point where such specific details may be helpful.
      1. "Booker combines the science of the subject with its political consequences to contend that..." This suggests that Booker's analysis of the science is objective, which is contended.
      2. "The book's claims were dismissed by science writer Philip Ball,[3] but was praised by several columnists." This is bad prose: "claims" does not match "was". However, it probably needs to be restructured anyway: the review by Philip Ball should not be dismissed as a minority one, as this seems to be the only substantial review by a scientist that we have, and the discussion of reviews in the lead should be more than one sentence.
      3. "The book opens with an erroneous quotation..." downplays a significant issue: a famous alleged quotation was found to be incorrect, and the author accepted this. Wikipedia should not endorse phrases such as "fabricated" (thanks to Collect again for fixing this) as there is no evidence for the source of this quotation, but neither should we brush it aside as a misunderstanding.
      4. "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph..." Which graph?
      5. "Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text"[n]" This suggests that the quote is directly from Seitz, whereas the footnote is to Booker. If it is from Seitz, then a more direct quotation would be stronger; if not, it should not be implied.
      6. "...this problem was dealt with by a 1999 graph..." presumably deals with the Hockey Stick, and this should be stated.
      7. "He then asserts that the IPCC's methods, and in particular the draft summary of its next report, came in for serious criticism from scientists such as Richard Lindzen." The prose here is loose: "came in for serious criticism from" should be "was criticized by", but then is there a list of scientists, or is there really only a list of one significant critic?
Well that's all the detail I can manage for now, and I've not yet got to the handling of reviews.
Much as I respect Majoreditor as an excellent long term contributor to GAR, I disagree that the lead now summarizes the article. Instead the first paragraph summarizes the thesis of the book, rather than the synopsis of the article, and there are two lines to summarize other aspects. The background section is not summarized: if well sourced, this is an opportunity to demonstrate the good intentions behind the book. The reviews should not be summarized in one sentence, and the Houghton quote controversy deserves a slightly less terse treatment.
I hope article improvements will continue. Geometry guy 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the furher emendations meet your approval (including a stray image removal which has little to bear on the topic) (I did not try to tackle some of the trivial wording changes we are now left with - I have seen zero GAs which would not benefit from my own blue pencil <g>. Collect (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fixes. You removed two images while intending to remove one. Which one did you want to remove? Geometry guy 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I suggest that neither was essential <g>. Add one if you think it helps. Collect (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article improvement appears to have run out of steam for the time being, and at least one improvement to the lead has been undone. I made a couple of small (hopefully uncontroversial) copyedits, but there remain content issues raised by Frederico1234, ScienceApologist and myself that indicate that the article does not yet quite meet the GA criteria, in particular with regard to the lead (1b) and coverage (3), with possible further concerns about wording (1a/b) and neutrality (4). I am disappointed that nothing has been done about the background section and the promotional quote, and also about the quote of a quote. Still the article has been improved during its time at GAR. Hopefully the desire to renominate and relist will spur further improvement, and editors will encounter a reviewer who challenges the balance of content without pushing a point of view. Meanwhile, with regret, I close this reassessment as delist. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/1&oldid=383120046"