Talk:Global dimming/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Clayoquot (talk · contribs) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi InformationToKnowledge. Thanks for nominating this article! I saw on the GAN page that you have been inactive for a few weeks, so I hope all is well with you. I will be reviewing this bit-by-bit. So far I have read the lead and find it nice and clear. I see that there are comments from a previous Good Article Reassessment and will assess whether those issues have been addressed, in addition to the usual checking against GA criteria. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm enjoying reviewing this article. Very interesting stuff. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy notification to GAR reviewers Femke and Chidgk1 that this review is underway. I intend to check whether all of your comments have been addressed and will re-notify you when I've finished checking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi InformationToKnowledge, Do you have any thoughts on my comments so far? Everything has been quiet so I am wondering if this review has been helpful so far. If someone intends to work on this in the near future, I will finish my review and will support you to the best of my ability. If not, just let me know. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually didn't realize that you left those comments on the 1st in the first place! I received a ping when you had volunteered to do this review, and I assumed that since the article itself and its talk page are on my watchlist, the GA review would show up in my watchlist as well. Turns out it hasn't, and I have been too preoccupied with Greenland ice sheet this month (most likely my next GA nominee) to check on this page.

This review has certainly been helpful, and now that I am aware of these points, I'll try to address them in the very near future! I just have to get a certain page merge (discussed here) out of the way first, if you don't mind. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes it's easy to miss these things! Sure, let's keep going. No rush :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that due to real-life busy-ness for the next few weeks I might not progress much. Happy holidays everyone :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and yeah, it seems like we are all slowing down our activity here to celebrate! For now, I acted on one of your suggestions (too much detail regarding cloud interactions) by moving that information to cloud feedback. The rest will have to wait until 2024. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on this. I'm back from holidays and should be able to follow up this week. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is looking much better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Spelling and grammar are fine, with some exceptions that I'll either describe later or fix myself. I have some concerns about jargon and unclear sentences but before I get into the details of those issues it would be best to address the issues around excessive detail described below. Some unclear content should just be removed.

   I have added comments for Criterion 1a in a separate section below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Unfortunately the lead section is quite far off from the conventions of WP:LEAD. The first sentence should start with "Global dimming is....". There are exceptions to this convention but I think following it here would greatly help the reader.

   The first sentence now starts with "Global dimming is...", which is a major improvement. See Femke's comments below regarding readability and lead length.

   For layout, the "See also" section needs a deep cleanup.

   For words to watch, the weasel words issue raised by Femke seems to have been resolved.

Update: See the section below on Criterion 1b. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1. There are some instances of MOS:REALTIME to address, e.g. this reversal is only considered "partial" for now.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Two of the main issues in the 2020 Good Article Reassessment were outdatedness and uncited text. There has been tremendous improvement in these areas. It's good to see a lot of the article being based on the latest IPCC report.

1. C. It contains no original research:

   I have added comments for Criterion 2c in a separate section below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio detector. It found one pretty clear copyvio sentence, which I removed.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

• In the Good Article Reassessment, Femke said, "I don't think the geoengineering section is relevant to this article; I've never seen it in that context." The section has since been improved but I don't think the issue of relevance has been addressed. Solar geongineering is a related topic so it deserves a mention. It's currently positioned as if it's an aspect of the topic of global dimming.

I have found a reliable reference which does use the term in this context. I would rather not make too many other changes to that section as is. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The reference you're referring to that relates these concepts is this one, right? I agree the source helps to show the relevance. I'm still concerned about giving wp:undue weight to solar geoengineering - I can get my head around having one paragraph to talk about the relationship between global dimming and solar geoengineering but four paragraphs feels excessive. As Femke raised this issue in the Good Article Review, I'd like to know what she thinks before I sign off on this one.

GA criteria require that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Section_templates_and_summary_style be followed, which means that if you have a section that summarizes a more detailed article it needs a WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE. I'll add one now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can find a compromise with the geo-engineering. I believe the last paragraph is a too long for comfortable reading at 170 words (easy-to-read is between 50-100 words, and up to 150 is okay for a majority of readers). That is the paragraph that goes in much too much detail about SRM, way past the "global dimming inspired / gives lessons to" SRM. Can we omit that one, or at least halve it? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

How about now? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Shortened again since then. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• The section on Aircraft contrails has been greatly improved and made more NPOV. Some of this content would be a good addition to Environmental effects of aviation. However, when reading this section I struggle to relate much of what it's saying to the issue of how much sunlight hits the Earth's surface. I would recommend replacing the entire section with one or a few sentences along the lines of "Aircraft contrails contribute to global dimming but they also trap heat emitted by the Earth. Overall, their warming effect is much greater than their cooling effect."

I have moved a lot of material directly to Contrail and condensed this section substantially, as well as connecting it a bit more to the article's topic. I think it should be enough. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for condensing this. I'm sorry, I'm really struggling to understand this section.

• What is the significance of diurnal temperature variation? When diurnal temperature variation increases as it did in 2001, what does that tell us?
• In the sentence However, follow-up studies found that a natural change in cloud cover can more than explain these findings, what findings are explained? Does this sentence mean that all of story from the Sept 11 shutdown is explained by natural causes? If that is the case, why is this story included at all? If it's not the case, what did we learn from the Sept 11 shutdown?
• What does "no significant response of diurnal surface air temperature range" mean?
• The last paragraph does not seem to be about aircraft contrails at all. It seems to be a list of points in support of the hypothesis that sulfate air pollution has a cooling effect. I'm not sure if this level of detail is important enough to include. If it must be included, it should go with other pieces of evidence that sulfate air pollution has a cooling effect. It should not go in the section about contrails.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph had been moved out of this section, and the section itself had been renamed and reorganized to make its purpose clearer. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• The reader should be able to quickly identify what the main scientific claims are and the level of scientific agreement for each of those claims. Throughout the article, I've been struggling to pick out this information, as it's intermixed with details about individual pieces of evidence. To give one example, in the "Relationship to climate change" section, there is a paragraph that gives the range of estimated temperature decreases caused by aerosol cooling, and says While these values are based on combining model estimates with observational constraints, including those on ocean heat content,[47] the matter is not yet fully settled. The difference between model estimates mainly stems from disagreements over the indirect effects of aerosols on clouds.[71][72] This is great. At that point, the article has described a claim and succinctly explained what kind of controversy there is over the claim. The problem (IMHO) is that instead of stopping at that point, the article gives another 343 words about individual studies that have informed the debate. If this article were anywhere other than Wikipedia there would be nothing objectively wrong with those 343 words, but here I feel they are inappropriate uses of primary sources, are distracting from the main points, and should be removed.

I have now moved those paragraphs to cloud feedback. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Super. The issue of key facts being buried amidst experimental methods and data points is a problem in many places in the article. Can you look for and address as many cases as you can find, and let me know when you're done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

How about now? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Xie et al 2022 Asian aerosols.png should be moved to Wikimedia Commons and author information should be stated there as required by the CC-BY license.

Done, I think. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1. FYI I have nominated File:Bomber stream.jpg for deletion on Commons, but it won't affect this GA review. If it gets deleted there, a bot will remove it from all articles.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Criterion 1a: Understandability

Thanks for putting a definition in the first sentence of the lead. I think I've gotten my head around the topic but it took me a few reads of this article and some of its sources, plus reading some other sources. To meet Criterion #1a (understandable to an appropriately broad audience), here are some ideas for making things easier to understand:

Use terms consistently

The article seems to use two definitions of "global dimming". In the first definition, global dimming is/was a trend over time. It existed only when each decade was dimmer than the previous, then it ceased to exist in the 1990s. The first definition is used in the lead, "Global dimming was the name given to a decline in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, a measure also known as global direct solar irradiance.

In the second definition, global dimming is something that happens whenever there is stuff in the atmosphere that blocks sunlight. Statements such as It is generally believed that the cooling provided by global dimming is similar to the warming derived from atmospheric methane use the second definition.

It is very difficult to make an article understandable when two definitions are in use. What do you think of using the second definition consistently throughout? If I Google "define:global dimming" without quotes most search results seem to use the second definition. The second definition makes much more sense given that stuff continues to be in the atmosphere blocking sunlight.

(More to come) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is what the first paragraph of the lead would look like if written to use the second definition consistently:

Global dimming is a decline in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, a measure also known as global direct solar irradiance. A dimming trend was observed soon after the first systematic measurements of solar irradiance began in the 1950s, and continued until 1980s, with an observed reduction of 4–5% per decade, even though solar activity did not vary more than the usual at the time.

Global dimming is caused by atmospheric particulate matter, predominantly sulfate aerosols. It intensified until around 1990 as a result of rapidly growing air pollution due to post-war industrialization. After 1990, global dimming declined alongside reductions in particulate emissions. This partial reversal of the dimming trend is known as global brightening. Dimming remains more intense than in pre-industrial times. The brightening trend has been globally uneven, as some of the brightening over the developed countries in the 1980s and 1990s had been counteracted by the increased dimming from the industrialization of the developing countries and the expansion of the global shipping industry, although they have also been making rapid progress in cleaning up air pollution in the recent years.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

How about the current version? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better. There are still a few places that suggest global dimming no longer exists, e.g. It was observed soon after the first systematic measurements of solar irradiance began in the 1950s, and continued until 1980s and Global dimming had been widely attributed to... Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewritten. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Minimize switching between facts and myths

When reading a reference work, the reader wants to be able to quickly find facts. The History and Causes sections contain a mixture of facts and myths, which reflects a chronological writing style. Separate the myths about the causes of dimming (solar variability, natural dust, etc.) into a subsection of the "Causes" section. This could be called something like "Alternative hypotheses". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think such a subheading might backfire by giving an impression of an ongoing debate where there is none. I have rewritten those sections to a fair extent to help address some of the issues. I suppose that the part describing Asian brown cloud and the Maldives might still be problematic - it was one of the few parts left over from the original article that I didn't really touch. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's going in the right direction. I moved some of the Maldives stuff to the History section. I see your point about an "Alternative hypotheses" section backfiring; maybe a section like this could be called "Discovery" or "Evidence"? In a reference work where we're trying to make science understandable, what is known about a topic often needs to be presented separately from the tortuous path that humanity took to develop that knowledge. A good example of this is the GA Pneumonia, where there is a Causes section with an overview of causes and sub-sections for each type of cause. The Causes section has almost no descriptions of specific studies or pieces of evidence. The story of how we all learned what we know about pneumonia is told in a History section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, instead of having a separate section for Evidence, you could add subsections for individual causes as described below. Then there will be a "Natural emissions" section where you can explain how we know natural emissions are a minor contributor. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewritten. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Minimize duplication / Keep discussion of each cause together

The section called "Past and present", under "Relationship to climate change", is largely repetitive with the Hitory and Causes sections. Duplication needs to be eliminated as much as possible. I suggest moving any points that aren't in the History and Causes section to those sections, and deleting the "Past and present" section altogether.

Before merging these sections, I think it would help to split up the "Causes" section into subheadings such as "Sulfate emissions from humans", "Natural emissions", "Black carbon" and "Aircraft contrails". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think splitting sulfate emissions into two is a good idea at all (change in anthropogenic emissions can only be appreciated next to natural emissions staying stable) but I did separate out sulfates and black carbon. The section on contrails had been reorganized entirely. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion 2c No original research

Here is an example of a statement that seems to be original research: Starting from 2005, scientific papers began to report that after 1990, the global dimming trend had clearly switched to global brightening.[28][39][40][41][42]. If you want to include this kind of statement, you need a secondary or tertiary source that states this directly, i.e. a source that has surveyed the literature from that time period. Quite a few statements in the article are about the history of science around global dimming, rather than being about the science itself. The history of science in this topic area is interesting, but it needs to be written by non-Wikipedians and then summarized by Wikipedians. And there should probably be a lot less of it - in a reference work the reader wants the conclusions of the scientific journey, they don't want the journey. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

By now, I have both added a couple of references that talk about the historical context and rewrote some statements like this. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Criterion 2b Staying focused on the topic

I don't see how to following passage is relevant: In the late 1960s, Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko worked with simple two-dimensional energy-balance climate models to investigate the reflectivity of ice.[25] He found that the ice–albedo feedback created a positive feedback loop in the Earth's climate system. The more snow and ice, the more solar radiation is reflected back into space and hence the colder Earth grows and the more it snows. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That was left behind from the older version of this article. I didn't check it thoroughly then, but you are right, it doesn't belong here, and I moved it to ice-albedo feedback. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Readability and understandability

Thanks for the ping Clayoquot. I think the key improvement still needed is around readability, related to 1a (WP:make technical articles understandable) and 1b (WP:LEADLENGTH). Hemingway says the lead is now written for a post-graduate audience, and I agree. Even though I've studied this as part of my PhD, I struggle with the text (with minor long covid brain fog tbf). Can we reduce the lead length by 1/3 or at a minimun 1/4? Then we'd be on the upper end of a typical lead. And reduce length mostly by reducing sentence length? A few examples of copy-editing for comprehension. ItK, I can strongly recommend the use of large language models in improving readability. The prompt that often works for me is "Can you say X more concisely and simple". :

• Instead, global dimming had been attributed to an increase in atmospheric particulate matter, predominantly sulfate aerosols, as the result of rapidly growing air pollution due to post-war industrialization --> Instead, global dimming was due to
• After 1980s, reductions in particulate emissions have also caused a "partial" reversal of the dimming trend, which has sometimes been described as a global brightening --> Since the 1980s, a decrease in air pollution has led to a partial reversal of the dimming trend, sometimes referred to as global brightening.
• The last superlong sentence of the lead --> The dimming reversal is not complete and varies worldwide. Brightening in developed countries during the 1980s and 1990s was offset by increased dimming in developing countries and by the expansion of the global shipping industry. In recent years, air pollution in developing countries has improved rapidly. (The "they" feels a bit odd here, as if we're assuming the reader is from the global north..)

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this detailed input and for the link to the Hemingway app. I agree understandability is a problem and these suggestions would help. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorporated all three points, more-or-less as suggested. The other paragraphs of the lead should be shorter as well. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a round of detail-trimming and copyediting of the lead. Got it down to 418 words, which was more than a 1/3 reduction. @InformationToKnowledge: could you please check that I did not make anything inaccurate?

The Hemingway app now says it's at a Grade 13 reading level. @Femke:, when using the Hemingway app I noticed it said there were 11 sentences in the lead. I double-checked and there were 20 sentences. I figured it might be confused by the footnotes so I removed the footnotes, re-ran Hemingway, and it correctly counted 20 sentences. I think the Hemingway app is useful but I don't put a lot of faith in an app that cannot even count sentences. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Clayoquot Thanks! I could never sacrifice those details myself, but I can see how it's better this way. I even removed the sentence about developed/developing countries + shipping, since that detail isn't really any more important than many of the others removed already. With that unwieldy sentence gone, I was able to reorient some sentences to keep the lead back within four paragraphs, which I think is important. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you use Wikiwand and copy the lead, Hemingway is not confused. It's annoying that it gets tripped up by the citations for sure. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion 1b: Words to watch

See MOS:WEASEL regarding phrases such as Global dimming has primarily been attributed to.... I don't see a reason not to say "Global dimming is primarily caused by...". State facts as if they are facts. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Media and captions

In the first image of the "Causes" section, does As it moves through the atmosphere with prevailing winds, weather patterns and seasonality alter these distributions from day-to-day. need to be in the caption? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am confused by the caption Big Brown Cloud Storm over Asia.. Why the capital letters? Does this image show the Asian brown cloud or is a "brown cloud storm" a different thing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Replaced that image with a more relevant one. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For the first image in the "Relationship to climate change" section, the image says "sulphur dioxide" but the caption says "sulfate aerosols". The caption needs to explain what the relationship is between them. Also "including the cooling provided by sulfate aerosols and the dimming they cause" suggests (erroneously?) that sulfate aerosols provide cooling by another mechanism in addition to dimming. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewritten. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For File:Glantz 2022 Europe aerosols.jpg, after reading the caption several times and looking at the full-size image file, I still cannot figure out what this image is saying. Can you explain in other words 1) what data the image shows, and 2) what the image tells us about global dimming? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Replaced with a different image. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For File:Smith 2020 SAI RCP scenarios.jpg, I cannot understand this at all. It might help to split the caption into smaller sentences, but it's probably best to formulate a one-paragraph plain-language takeaway and include that instead of the image. If you use the term "Representative Concentration Pathway" you will need to explain what that means. Also spell out SAI. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Rewrote the caption entirely. Hopefully, the point is much clearer now. And SAI is already spelled out in the article text. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

Hi InformationtoKnowledge. I've finally finished a first pass of my review. I will never use GA review templates again - what a pain. To summarize where we are:

• The article is scientifically very strong. We are lucky to have someone as knowledgeable as you in our community.
• Regarding the GAR, I believe the issues raised there have been either addressed, or were partly addressed and have come up again in this review. Regarding @Chidgk1:'s point that "variation in the radiation emitted by the sun needs to be clearly distinguished from variations in how much is absorbed by the atmosphere", I think the article now does this well.
• The main issue is understandability for non-experts. Problems with understandability arise from issues at several levels: Curation (choosing what to leave out), using summary statements, article structure, use of plain language versus jargon, word length, and sentence/length and structure. It is generally easiest to start by removing and summarizing excessive detail, and then moving towards refining the sentences. Let me know how I can help.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Just letting you know that I'll be gradually responding to this over the next few days. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. When you've addressed as many issues as you can, let me know and I'll give the article a top-to-bottom re-read. I'm aiming to not to re-read individual changes or sections until then, both to save myself time and to avoid becoming too familiar with the content. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Clayoquot and @InformationToKnowledge, courtesy reminder ping that this is still outstanding. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. InformationToKnowledge, do you want to continue with this review? If not, I'll mark it as failed for now but you can re-nominate it at any time if you choose. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for sure! We seem to be really close now: it's just that splitting and reorganizing much of the current article layout into subsections, as you suggested, is a bit of a chore, and a range of higher-view and/or far more problematic articles have blotted out my radar over the past month and a half. (i.e. see the work on Climate change itself, or on Southern Ocean overturning circulation and the other Antarctica-related articles.) I am certainly not abandoning this GA outright, though, and I should be able to set aside enough time for it very soon. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So, I started to implement some of your suggestions in regards to reorganizing the article (i.e. splitting up the section on causes and moving contrails.) It is still not close to done (i.e. the section on black carbon clearly needs expansion, and I have not yet settled on the best way to address your questions about certain graphics), but it's been an important step forward. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clayoquot @Femke I have responded to effectively all of your suggestions, and made some additional improvements. Please take a look at the article now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. I am currently travelling and will take a look in the next few days. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I haven't had time to look at this yet and will need a while longer to dig myself out of my RL to-do list. Thanks for your patience. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ready to pass

This article has come a HUGE way. If there are no objections, I intend to give it a GA rating in the next few days. I did some significant restructuring to the "Relationship to climate change" section so please take a look and make sure I haven't screwed anything up. Thanks InformationToKnowledge for your hard work on this difficult topic! Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! I did have to make more than a few changes to your edits, though - mainly to address MOS:SANDWICH which occurred in that section after you moved so many images down and left upper sections without images. I don't quite understand why you did that, but please, don't do it again!

I also added references to the "summary sentences" you made, since any free-standing sentences without references are a magnet for "Citation needed" tags, and with good reason. However, I understand that you wouldn't have had the time to read through the references to select the appropriate ones for those, and fixing it wasn't difficult anyway. I am so ready to finally have this nomination done and to see this article on DYK! (assuming it hasn't been there already, which is unlikely.) InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There are still come open questions in my mind about this article. Nothing major, so not holding up your GA review but it would still be great if someone could take a look and address them. See below on the normal talk page (i.e. not the talk page of the GA review): Overlap with the particulates article, question about image and its caption, better section heading for the solar geoengineering section. EMsmile (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these issues, InformationToKnowledge, and congratulations on a fine GA! EMsmile, thanks for the reminder of the concerns you brought up earlier, which I trust will be dealt with through the normal editorial process. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.