This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's previously a B-article, and includes a lot of great detail but now is pretty outdated. I was curious what should be taken out and what should be added.
Thanks, The lorax (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs a lot of work to get to B or GA class, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
- Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be 3 to 4 paragraphs for this length article. To expand it, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- There seems to be too much empahsis in the article on the US compared to the rest of the world - this is a global problem. See WP:WEIGHT - perhaps if the article were called "Politics of global warming in the United States" the US part by itself would be better.
- Biggest obstacle I can see to getting this to a higher class is the lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
- Article has very few images - there should be a lead image for example. Perhaps the article on global warming or the Kyoto treaty has an image that could be used.
- Spell out abbreviations on first use, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses - like UNFCCC
- Article is quite listy in spots - first section after the lead does not even have any explanatory text, just a list. Lists should generally be converted to prose for better readability
- To improve flow, the very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]