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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 9 August 2010

The Real Global Warming Disaster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review • Subsequent individual GAR review

Result pending

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]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 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.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 :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]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
+::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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)