| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because:
- I think that the "Controversies" section is not balanced, especially the second line in relation with István Markó. Solving this most probably needs some knowledge of climatology as well as what involved people wrote and did. I am convinced that this is no genuine controversy. I explain more on the talk page associated to the article and do not want to intervene myself due to what could be perceived as "interest".
- Adding content would be welcome, as the page is still incomplete. Possible sources of information include [1], his personal website (which could be cited) or his interview with CarbonBrief [2]
Thanks, Pmarbaix (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Given that this is a living person and the fact that there are only 2 sources in the controversy section, I would either add a lot more references (to demo that this wasn't just a 1 day news story) OR delete the section in its entirety.
- The lead should summarize the info below. The lead here presents unique information and it fails to mention anything of his awards or international involvement.Dig Deeper (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)