418:
thesis that a) global warming is occurring, and b) the warming is primarily caused by mankind. I think it is a fair discussion in which both arguments for and against are represented. It is neutral in treatment, and leaves it to the reader to assess where the balance of the argument lies. Although there have been attempts to change content, they seem to have stabilised. It is illustrated by just two relevant images, which should be increased if possible. It seems to me that it does qualify for the status of a good article.
31:
683:
667:
586:
574:
553:
524:
497:
481:
703:
635:
609:
536:
761:
but then the nominator actively contacted various editors with the message: "I have nominated The Real Global
Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest
389:
to give Jprw a sense of why I thought it wasn't ready. After all, I believe it's his first attempt at a GAN. It's hard for a new editor to have a sense of what constitutes a GA. When Mark Nutley went ahead any said "for now my vote is for GA status" I copied and expanded my comments here. Again, he's
800:
My concerns here are over the neutrality and broad coverage aspects, both of which I think the article fails. It does not correctly place the book within its context: re-reading, it is clear that the "background" section is quite inadequate. The essential fact - that these are tiny minority opinions
394:
a GA. I don't consider either of my comments formal reviews - just a broad overview of the sort of things that need to be looked at. If I had done a formal review, I'd have been a lot more specific. (Actually, if I'd done a formal review I would also have quick-failed it. But I would have still done
211:
MN's desire to see an article on a subject that he personally promotes a GA makes the neutrality and reliablity of his "review" deeply suspicious; as does his desire to suppress other reviews. Nor, given his clear biases, was it even slightly proper of him to attempt this suppression. For the record
417:
I have been asked to review the article against the six criteria for a "good" article. 1. The article is well written, with clear prose and good language. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It addresses the main factors in the debate between climate sceptics and those who promote the
366:
I don't believe that WMC or Mark should have reviewed this article. I myself declined to review it when asked. If
Guettarda is, in fact, volunteering as the official GA reviewer, then once his concerns are addressed I expect him to respond appropriately. I wonder, though, why Guettarda didn't
239:
single-sentence paragraphs!) are the most obvious examples, as are the excessively long sentences in the "Synopsis". The first sentence in the second para, for example, is 68 words long. In addition, the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z
762:
in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk)" and several have responded here with reviews and one is the
Reviewer.
776:
246:
The second paragraph of the lead, for example, quotes
Delingpole's review, despite the fact that his review is not included in the body of the article. It also quotes Ball, but not the issues raised by Ball in the body of the
234:
Per 1(a), the article is not "reasonably well written". The writing is not up to GA standard by any stretch. The extensive use of bullet points within the text and the stubby paragraphs in the "Reception" section (four
433:
Yes Peter, but you were asked to do so by the
Nominator, numerous other people have also been asked to do so. I'm quite happy to accept your review is "competent", but this not not how the system is intended to work.
829:
But, most of all, the review is intended to be impartial and the
Nominator actively requesting editors to undertake the review, two of whom contributed (and one is the Reviewer - not me) is not my idea of impartial
825:
OK they are valid concerns. However, any registered editor (no IP users) who has not significantly contributed to the article is entitled to review it; and anyone else can contribute to the review - which you are
229:
Seems you must have missed my comments on the talk page. I didn't think that editors involved in the CC pages should do the review, but since that's not the case any longer, I might as well comment here.
805:
from FS, who is an extreme contrarian. This doesn't come close to neutrality. I think this may be a problem with the GA review process - someone from outside the field is not going to know this
108:
297:. Comments from the reviewer, such as "but for now my vote is for GA status" do not bode well, coupled with a direct request from the nominator to the reviewer to carry out the review
104:
89:
541:
Generally compliant, but there are instances where not all direct quotations are cited - mostly this applies to paragraphs and sentences containing more than one direct quote.
81:
180:
WMC should not be commenting on this as he has heavily edited this article, I am unsure of how to proceed with regards to this breach of protocol as it clearly says
771:
and ask for it to be overturned. I would hope that common sense pervails. That, after a period of carefull consideration, the article is renominated at
317:
775:
and the nominator allow an impartial review to take place, i.e. no active attempts are made to select a nominator of your choice. There is a
97:
17:
455:
725:
250:
The "Review" section also overuses quotes; they account for the majority of the words in the paragraphs on Leach's reaction and
Hitchens'.
661:
745:
737:
547:
640:
No apparent edit wars; however the article was nominated at 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) but is still under active development (see
264:
the book, it does not report on what the few secondary sources it uses actually says about the book. It is not at all "complete".
74:
348:
Mark, please slow down and think. You cannot use a talk page comment by a
Wikipedian to support a claim about another editor. --
243:
Per 1(b), the article mixes AE and BE, opening with AE despite the fact that it's a
British author and was published in the UK.
801:
within the field of science - is completely hidden. For example, within the "synopsis" section the only comment on the SAR os
810:
385:
I didn't think I should review this article either - I don't think anyone active in the CC area should. I just provided some
217:
169:
728:. This states: "Reviewers should avoid reviewing articles that they have edited significantly, and should focus on applying
869:
741:
749:
491:
293:
If this is a serious review then the review should be reviewing it against the requirments of a Good
Article, i.e.
733:
514:
806:
213:
165:
160:- don't believe this; don't think "examines", which implies a clear-headed unbaised view, is at all appropriate.
353:
618:
where various newspaper reviews are quoted - both for and against. The question is: is this article balanced?
423:
339:
298:
188:
146:
133:
850:
814:
793:
443:
427:
404:
380:
357:
343:
329:
310:
283:
253:
Per 2(b), almost half the article is sourced to the book itself. We need rely primarily on reliable
221:
206:
192:
173:
150:
779:
currently running, if it is resubmited before the end of the month the wait should not be too long.
400:
349:
279:
202:
752:; the review should not be influenced by personal feelings about the merit of the article topic. .
653:
268:
334:
Replied there. Should WMC`s review also be queried? As he has heavily edited this article and ?
182:
Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article
729:
459:
294:
51:
784:
I might have passed the article under different circumstances, so best wishes in improving it.
162:
Booker chronologically charts the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming
846:
789:
439:
325:
306:
599:
371:
the "on hold" or "failed" icon at that GA review board like GA reviewers are supposed to do?
838:
834:
772:
768:
758:
677:
139:
59:
43:
419:
376:
335:
184:
142:
129:
396:
275:
198:
156:
Not even close - far too credulous; takes the book itself far too seriously. Examples:
318:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Good article nominations#alk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1
30:
863:
837:, but the sensible way forward, to me, is to improve the article and resubmit it at
842:
785:
777:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010
435:
321:
302:
833:
I've failed it: objections (i.e. that I have failed it unjustly) can be made at
372:
614:
This is/may be (make your own choice) controversal and this comes out in the
58:
If you disagree with this article's review, the article can be nominated for
240:
happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form.
271:
problems when a fringe topic is presented as if it were mainstream.
390:
relatively new, and I was trying to explain to him why it clearly
25:
803:
The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "
676:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
29:
767:
The nominator can, and is entitled, to take this review to
46:. The results of the nomination were that the article has
660:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
301:
raise question marks about the validity of this review.
641:
386:
368:
116:
85:
732:
and Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines, such as
138:Remove my review until i have read and understood
533:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
724:The requirement for Good Articles is given in:
212:- no, I have not "heavily edited" this article
719:I'm not going to award GA-status at this time.
8:
757:This nomination was correctly nominated at
467:This has the makings of a good article.
726:Knowledge (XXG):Reviewing good articles
56:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster
7:
702:
634:
608:
606:Fair representation without bias:
535:
24:
748:, and some key provisions of the
701:
681:
665:
633:
607:
584:
572:
551:
534:
522:
495:
479:
260:Per 3(a), the article does not
197:Opinions are welcome from all.
395:a much more in-depth review).
1:
682:
666:
585:
573:
552:
523:
496:
480:
164:- ditto - far too credulous
136:) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
886:
521:A. References to sources:
465:
851:09:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
815:09:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
794:08:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
657:to illustrate the topic?
444:06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
428:22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
405:07:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
381:03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
358:20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
344:20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
330:20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
311:20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
284:18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
267:Per 4, there are obvious
222:20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
207:18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
193:18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
174:18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
151:14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
60:Good article reassessment
473:reasonably well written
34:
746:neutral point of view
730:Good article criteria
566:broad in its coverage
52:Good article criteria
33:
870:Good article reviews
807:William M. Connolley
738:no original research
548:No original research
299:User talk:Marknutley
214:William M. Connolley
166:William M. Connolley
662:fair use rationales
632:No edit wars, etc:
571:A. Major aspects:
510:factually accurate
478:A. Prose quality:
316:I've raised it at
35:
678:suitable captions
66:
65:
877:
742:reliable sources
705:
704:
685:
684:
669:
668:
637:
636:
611:
610:
588:
587:
576:
575:
555:
554:
538:
537:
526:
525:
499:
498:
483:
482:
387:initial feedback
121:
112:
93:
26:
885:
884:
880:
879:
878:
876:
875:
874:
860:
859:
750:Manual of Style
452:
415:
291:
102:
79:
73:
71:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
883:
881:
873:
872:
862:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
831:
827:
818:
817:
797:
796:
781:
780:
764:
763:
754:
753:
721:
720:
715:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
700:Pass or Fail:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
674:
673:
672:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
581:
580:
579:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
544:
543:
542:
531:
530:
529:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
488:
487:
486:
451:
448:
447:
446:
414:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
350:Stephan Schulz
290:
287:
273:
272:
265:
258:
251:
248:
244:
241:
227:
226:
225:
224:
209:
177:
176:
122:
70:
67:
64:
63:
42:of a previous
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
882:
871:
868:
867:
865:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
760:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:verifiability
731:
727:
723:
722:
718:
717:
716:
707:
706:
699:
698:
696:
693:
687:
686:
679:
675:
671:
670:
663:
659:
658:
656:
655:
649:
642:
639:
638:
631:
630:
628:
624:
617:
613:
612:
605:
604:
602:
601:
596:
590:
589:
582:
578:
577:
570:
569:
567:
563:
557:
556:
549:
545:
540:
539:
532:
528:
527:
520:
519:
517:
516:
511:
507:
501:
500:
493:
489:
485:
484:
477:
476:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
463:
461:
458:review – see
457:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
412:
406:
402:
398:
393:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
288:
286:
285:
281:
277:
270:
266:
263:
259:
256:
252:
249:
245:
242:
238:
233:
232:
231:
223:
219:
215:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
183:
179:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:that examines
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
141:
137:
135:
131:
127:
123:
120:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
78:
77:
68:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
44:GA nomination
41:
37:
32:
28:
27:
19:
802:
714:
694:
651:
626:
615:
598:
583:B. Focused:
565:
513:
509:
494:compliance:
472:
466:
462:for criteria
454:
453:
416:
391:
292:
289:Fair review?
274:
261:
254:
236:
228:
181:
161:
157:
128:
125:
124:
117:
113:
99:Article talk
98:
94:
75:
72:
55:
47:
39:
336:mark nutley
237:consecutive
185:mark nutley
143:mark nutley
130:mark nutley
86:visual edit
38:This is an
515:verifiable
420:Peterlewis
616:Reception
450:GA review
397:Guettarda
276:Guettarda
269:WP:WEIGHT
255:secondary
199:Guettarda
126:Reviewer:
69:GA Review
864:Category
830:reviews.
652:contain
650:Does it
460:WP:WIAGA
295:WP:WIAGA
257:sources.
247:article.
843:Pyrotec
786:Pyrotec
695:Overall
600:neutral
436:Pyrotec
322:Pyrotec
303:Pyrotec
262:discuss
109:history
90:history
76:Article
40:archive
839:WP:GAN
835:WP:GAR
826:doing.
773:WP:GAN
769:WP:GAR
759:WP:GAN
654:images
627:stable
625:Is it
597:Is it
564:Is it
508:Is it
471:Is it
413:Review
392:wasn't
140:WP:RGA
48:failed
373:Cla68
369:place
118:Watch
16:<
847:talk
811:talk
790:talk
512:and
440:talk
424:talk
401:talk
377:talk
354:talk
340:talk
326:talk
307:talk
280:talk
218:talk
203:talk
189:talk
170:talk
147:talk
134:talk
105:edit
82:edit
50:the
546:C.
492:MoS
490:B.
866::
849:)
841:.
813:)
792:)
744:,
740:,
736:,
697::
680::
664::
629:?
603:?
568:?
550::
518:?
475:?
456:GA
442:)
426:)
403:)
379:)
356:)
342:)
328:)
320:.
309:)
282:)
220:)
205:)
191:)
172:)
149:)
107:|
88:|
84:|
54:.
845:(
809:(
788:(
643:)
438:(
422:(
399:(
375:(
352:(
338:(
324:(
305:(
278:(
216:(
201:(
187:(
168:(
145:(
132:(
114:·
111:)
103:(
95:·
92:)
80:(
62:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
