Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA3

GA Reassessment

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

Unfortunately, the individual who approved this article did not see the obvious fail of criteria #4, namely that the article be neutral. In particular, there are two points of Wikipedia policy/guidelines to which the article fails to conform: namely undue weight and fringe theories policies. Essentially, this is an article written about a fringe theory and pseudoscience, in this case, global warming denialism. Unfortunately, the article, as written, does not conform to these guidelines. In particular, the sources from the most reliable reviewers, those being ones with scientific credentials, are given short-shrift and the reviews by denialists and, frankly, charlatans are given equal weight in defiance of Wikipedia policy. The analysis by Philip Ball is given such short-shrift in the article it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting a positive spin on the article. The book itself is a minor player in the ultimate context of the article, and it is unclear that the article is analyzing it properly. In particular, the major scientific flaws of the book cannot be addressed because the book itself is too obscure to have been reviewed thoroughly by scientific experts. This means that the content coverage of the book isn't sufficiently vetted and, indeed, in violation of WP:PSTS and WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. It is with regret, then, that unless these major problems are fixed this article cannot be listed as GA.

It is very difficult to write about a fringe/pseudoscience field to the level required to gain approval of the Wikipedia review process. I commend the person attempting this for this effort and regret that it is so problematic. A much shorter article that didn't weight the content of the book as heavily is basically all that can be allowed from the sourcing standpoint of this encyclopedia. Sorry.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)