Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Inconvenient Truth/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 22:11, 27 March 2010 [1].

An Inconvenient Truth

[edit]

An Inconvenient Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a complete high quality article on an important topic, with exhaustive research on the origins/making of the film, music and impact.The lorax (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Haven't checked the prose, but I'm already concerned with (other) technical stuff.

Removed--The lorax (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access dates for some web refs are missing—how do we find archives when (not if) the originals die or change? Where they are present, their date formats are all over the place (Day Month Year; Month Day, Year; ISO style)—use consistent formats for prose and refs. Also decide whether they'll end, e.g., ", retrieved 2007-01-10" or "Retrieved 2007-01-26."—I assume you're mixing {{cite ___}} and {{citation}}, which is a problem all its own.
Fixed date formatting to ISO style and changed all lower case retrieved to Retrieved.--The lorax (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet. There are still inconsistent date formats in the refs (the access dates look ok, but others are still all over the place). Some still miss the period at the end. More importantly, some refs (e.g. 96) are completely linked, and some (e.g. 104 and every ref from 84 to 90) lack any access dates or bibliographic info aside from the title. How would we know a source is reliable when (again, not if) these websites change? I don't like opposing on tech details, but refs should use consistent formatting—see criterion 2c—and there are serious problems here that I see more and more and make me lean that way. --an odd name 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the one-sentence opera section to "Impact". It's too short to have its own heading (of any level). Merge or remove any other short sections to improve flow.
Merged into Impact.--The lorax (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, a spoken version! ...except it's from 2006, and thus probably out-of-date to the point of uselessness. Really, get someone to record a new one, and remove it until then.

--an odd name 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUE, the most important points are appropriately outlined in the lede. Inaccuracies were negligible to the film's overall message; the film is largely uncontroversial among mainstream climate scientists.--The lorax (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. WP:LEDE is excruciatingly specific: controversies go in the lede. Besides – and I'll do my best to tread lightly here – WP:DUE is actually completely irrelevant within this specific context. In additon to singling out controversy as a necessary element of the lede, WP:LEDE specifies that the lede should function as a stand-alone summary of the article. There is no doubt that the controversy regarding this movie rises to the threshold of notability necessary for inclusion in the lede. Heck, you have an entire second-level heading subsection devoted to that aspect. The organization of your own article mandates its inclusion. • Ling.Nut 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the "the controversy regarding this movie rises to the threshold of notability." Three instances of challenges in schools seems relatively small to include in the lede; it's not as if this is a frequently challenged work like Catcher in the Rye.--The lorax (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a major court case. There have been gallons of ink spilt in editorials; millions of defenseless pixels killed on blogs... all about this controversy. You're saying it isn't notable? Your position seems shaky at best. • Ling.Nut 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I added a mention of the court case in the lede.--The lorax (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm on the topic of the article's organization (see above), I'm not at all sure that the info in the Music section warrants a second-level heading section. Moreover, the whole durn Music section kept poking me with WP:COATRACKs. If you remove all the coatracks, e.g., "On tour, Etheridge has urged her audiences to see the film and to act," the section is much skimpier & should perhaps be a third-level subsection under "Production" or something. But please, spare me the bagful of POV coatracks. Please delete all editorial comments, even from Ms. Etheridge, from this section. She's a musician, but she's delivering political opinions, and that doesn't belong in a section organized as being about music. If you wanna put her opinions anywhere, I suppose they could go in a "Reaction" section... • Ling.Nut 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song she wrote for the film is called I Need To Wake Up, a call to take action. If the song had no activist themes, than I would agree, but that's not the case.--The lorax (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music is music; activism is activism. Info about activism belongs in a section about "responses" or "reactions" or heck even "political activism" – something along those lines. Info in a music section should be about music... I suppose if there was one tiny little comment in a huge section about the music, it would be forgivable. But the key point is this: the POV stances taken in the section outweigh the info about the music. Move it or lose it, please. • Ling.Nut 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the problematic sentence.--The lorax (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me the lede needs work, but let's go step by step. Are we sure the paragraph "The idea to document..." is important enough for the lede? I mean, it sounds nice and all, but is it a major point of the article? I'd delete it. Your thoughts invited. • Ling.Nut 07:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important in addressing what was the origin of the film; I think it's interesting that it wasn't Gore's idea.--The lorax (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Firstly congratulations to all the editors. Article is pretty good.
    • Section "Scientific Basis": The final paragraph doesn't flow very well. It's a bit too "he said/she said" and feels like a number of editors all seeking to put in their own favourite quote. Perhaps this could be rejigged to make it smoother,
Per your suggestion, I removed it. It didn't seem to add anything other than Jim Inhofe doesn't believe in global warming which isn't relevant to whether the science of the film is accurate.--The lorax (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section "Background -> Origins": "...initiated first congressional hearing..." I would like to at least know what year that was, preferably month and year.
New York Magazine says 1981.--The lorax (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section "Technical aspects": "There's JPEG stuff." That really makes the section as a whole end on a very sudden and odd note. Ideally there would be a non-quote bit of article text after that to mitigate the current CLONK! it ends with.
Added some more context to Guggenheim's use of so many formats.--The lorax (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section "Best doc. feat. awards/nominations" (once expanded): good idea to have this collapsed, looks quite neat. However, the list currently has some entries with full dates and some without. Personally I think it would look better if just the award and year were given. It's not entirely clear to me what those full dates represent; I assume it's the day the award was given. But, anyway, I think just year of award is fine.
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, I think the article's semi-protected status is going to be a block on getting this to featured status at the moment. Nevertheless, well done to all the contributors thus far. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The semi-protection is due to expire March 20th, but I've requested it be unprotected ASAP. The article is now unprotected.--The lorax (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article as a whole looks fairly good, but I think that the final "Impact" section should be reorganized. It should have a specific subheading "Use in school curricula" which is above national subheaders (if any), and hopefully after this reorganization no specific "controversy" subheader will be needed. I think I'll take a shot at this later, pending your reaction. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Edited by Steve T • C at 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC). I planned a more in-depth review, but the article fell at the first hurdle I tackled, 1c verification. I checked six sources at random; three came back with problems:[reply]
    • Article: "Outside of Europe, the film was positively received by political leaders as well. In Costa Rica, Gore met with president Oscar Arias, and was well received by other politicians and the local media." The source says nothing of the sort: "President Oscar Arias watched the most recent of numerous screenings of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which highlights U.S. Vice President Al Gore's presentations on the threat of global warming. Before and after the screening, the audience listened as Foreign Minister Bruno Stagno, National Liberation Party (PLN) legislator Maureen Ballestero, Minister of Environment and Energy Roberto Dobles and National Meteorological Institute (IMN) meteorologist Roberto Villalobos discussed how Costa Rica is facing global warming."
    • Article: "Gore's book of the same title was published concurrently with the theatrical release of the documentary. The book contains additional information, scientific analysis, and Gore's commentary on the issues presented in the documentary. A 2007 documentary entitled An Update with Former Vice President Al Gore features Gore discussing additional information that came to light after the film was completed, such as Hurricane Katrina, coral reef depletion, glacial earthquake activity on the Greenland ice sheet, wildfires, and trapped methane gas release associated with permafrost melting." The source is ... the IMDb page for An Update with Former Vice-President Al Gore? Even if you were citing Update itself, you wouldn't do it by citing a web page that verifies only that the film exists.
      • Fixed source.--The lorax (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A secondary source would be preferable, but OK. Still, I don't see how it's citing "Gore's book of the same title was published concurrently with the theatrical release of the documentary. The book contains additional information, scientific analysis, and Gore's commentary on the issues presented in the documentary." Steve T • C
    • Article: "Professor Brian Soden, however, expressed concern about the coverage of topics for which there was not a scientific consensus, indicating 'I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus.' Gore cited Kerry Emanuel's 2005 report in Nature on hurricane intensity increasing with the increase of global mean temperatures." The source says nothing of Professor Brian Soden or his comments. The only relevant line on this web page is "The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years." This itself is cited to the Emanuel report, but says nothing of the report's claiming a correlation between temperature rises and hurricane intensities. Nor does it mention Gore; unless he wrote the text of the cited page (unlikely), you can't claim "Gore says" as if it’s a rebuttal. It's just a page his team put together to support the film's claims. Borderline synthesis, even if Soden's comments were cited to the correct source.
      • This was sourced from an Associated Press article; I fixed the prose so that was more clear.--The lorax (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Soden's comments now cited, cheers. However, the way it reads is still very much like a synth-y rebuttal to "One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between hurricanes and global warming, which remains contentious in the science community", especially as the page was written months before the Post article appeared and before the film was even released. And it still says "Gore cited" Emanuel's report, when there's nothing on the page to indicate this wasn't just some random research bod who put the list together. Finally, where on the page does it say that Emanuel's report "linked hurricane intensity with the increase of global mean temperatures"? It may well have done, but no-one attempting to verify the statement will be able to tell from the cited page. Steve T • C
  • I really hope these aren't indicative of the way sources have been used throughout the article, especially that last one. I stopped my review there, but once you've settled (or successfully rebutted) these, I'll look at the rest. All the best, Steve T • C 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck oppose for now. Consider the above issues dealt with. If I get the chance, I'll look at the article again before the end of the nomination. Feel free to move my "dealt with" comments to talk if this page becomes too long (longer FAC pages attract fewer reviewers). Steve T • C 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One of the most notable issues I remember was the diagram where Gore shows how the temperature follows the CO2 curve, while really it seems the other way around. This is favorably being taken up by climate skeptics, but this is not addressed in the article. I didn't really scan the article deeply, but I thought that this was missing crucially. Nageh (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Steig from RealClimate says Gore is within his right to make this case: "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate."--The lorax (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article mostly confirms the relevance of the correlation but does not address whether temperature follows CO2 or the other way around. In fact, this article should be cited, and I think that such (and similar) main issues raised by skeptics need to be pointed out in the article, including the scientists' refutes. Nageh (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point more clear: This article almost completely ignores criticism and controversies in the public, the media, and as I recall even by some (who?) scientists. Given the large extent of such opinions, up to the point that controversies were raised in schools and notably by a US congressman to discredit Gore's stated influence of CO2 on temperature, all this is crucially needed in the article. Nageh (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added response from US Senators as you suggested. However, I'm not sure if I understand your criticism regarding controversies among scientists. I noted the dispute about the hurricane-linkage but other disputes may largely be proxy criticisms of global warming in general which I think would be superfluous to this article and better addressed in global warming controversy.--The lorax (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like your additions about governmental reactions. Regarding criticism from among scientists, I recall that skeptics cited several such people denying (in part) the allegations from the movie, though I don't have any reference at hand. On critical reactions from reviewers, it could be interesting to add this ref, taken from the German wikipedia. On impact in public opinion, it may be hard to pick among the zillions of sites disputing claims from the movie. A Google search on "an inconvenient truth" fraud delivers more than a million hits, of which probably most deny claims from the movie. If no representative sites can be chosen, maybe we can write a single sentence and refer to the Google keyword search. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on structure: I propose a different structure for the article. First, even though this is an article on a movie, a Music section is not something you'd expect right after Scientific basis and Background and before Reception. I suggest moving it to the end of the article. Then, maybe it would be wise to switch Scientific basis with the Background section, such that after scientific facts there comes right the Reception section. From the Reception section, I would move Response from climate skeptics to Impact as sub-section 6.3, and rename the latter to Impact and Response. Then maybe we can rename Response from climate skeptics to Industry and Business (or similar). Section Use in education could then be subordinated as sub-section 6.4 in Impact and Response. 7.1 In the United Kingdom could then be renamed to 6.4.1 United Kingdom and the Dimmock case. So, the last section (before See also, etc.) would be Music. Nageh (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose (note: see post below) This article is a paean to the movie and Al Gore. Which would be fine, if Gore and the movie were uncontroversial. This article does absolutely nothing to explain to the public the deeper issues involved – but does a lot to flatter the movie and its creator(s). • Ling.Nut 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What other controversies aren't mentioned? The article mentions the UK High Court case and several other controversies at school districts in the US.--The lorax (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Definitely per 1B and 1C; arguably per WP:NPOV. This movie is two things: it is a popularization of a scientific position, and it is political propaganda. The article does take a stab at the political aspects, but gives the science a huge miss. I would like to see an in-depth, academically sound discussion of the scientific points proposed by the movie – anything else is a huge disservice to Wikipedia's readers. And if the article gets too long, start dropping the People magazine crap about the music and so on. As for NPOV, I don't wanna get into that argument now. Too tiring. I maintain that 1B alone is enough to fail this nom at present. Come back when the 1B is fully addressed, then we'll start talking about NPOV... By the way, last word: Your reply to my comment about is a beautifully perfect encapsulation of both of my complaints. I complained that the controversy wasn't covered; you countered that it was "mentioned". Two problems:
  1. "mentioned" is not the same as "covered"
  2. "mentioned" is the mirror image of WP:UNDUE in that it is undue brevity – which is a form of NPOV. • Ling.Nut 09:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/An_Inconvenient_Truth/archive1&oldid=352449091"