Wikipedia:Peer review/Watts Up With That?/archive1

Watts Up With That?

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was nominated for GAR in July, but has been unstable since then. I want to get this article in good shape so that it can go through the GAR process and pass. There is work to be done on this article, and it needs a fresh look from editors who have not been involved in editing it and who are familiar with peer review and GA criteria. I was not the nominator for GAR, and I did not create the article.

Thanks, Minor4th 00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Polargeo

This article is not too far from GA but appears to be part of a general battleground which a current arbcom case is looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. This does not really require peer review but meditation before GA status can be conveyed. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs somewhat more work before it is ready for WP:GAN, aside from any edit wars / arbcom cases, etc. Here are some suggestions for improvement and thanks for working on this article.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. 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. However, there are somethings in the lead like the year the website was founded, that are only in the lead and infobox, but not in the body of the article itself.
• Similarly, as a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not really see how the "Temperature records project" section is in the lead.
• I think it is important in a History section to focus on the creator of the website and the mechanics of the website itself too. A bit of background on Watts would help to provide context to the reader, and how can this be a history if it does not include the start date?
• I would also include, if they are know, Watts' reasons for starting the blog in the first place - what motivated him to begin this? As it is, the History section begins in media res
• I would also include things like the structure of the website - when were moderators added? Who are the contributors besides Watts? What kind of traffic does it get? What kinds of forums are available for readers or for people to post at? We are told about a moderator in the Climategate section and Alexa rankings in 2010, and some is mentioned in the lead, but any more details in the article body would help.
• The article should not include URLs in the text (surface stations) - that is what refs are for
• The 2010 and Reception sections are very choppy - almost all one or two sentence short paragraphs, and almost no narrative flow. Can these be made into more of a story as to what is going on?
• Some refs are incomplete - 9 is just a title and 20 just a URL. 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
• Make sure the refs used meet WP:RS - I have no idea if they do, but that is one way to avoid some controversy. Newspaper refs seems good, not sure on the others.
• Any chance for a free image? I looked at the article on Mr. Watts to see if there was one of him, and see he runs the Surface stations website too - this should be clearly stated in this article.
• WP:NPOV issues will be crucial here - are there repsonses to the websites' positions on all this that critque them?

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 peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Ruhrfisch. I think the editors of that article do not have this page watchlisted. I am going to link to this page on the WUWT article talk page and copy this post of yours for more exposure among the editors who are active on the article. Minor4th 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Geometry guy

• Both the lead and the article have "In addition to its creator/founder, the blog..." which mismatches the noun clause with the subject rather than the object of the sentence.
• Wikilinks do not need to be repeated within a section: this happens with Christopher Monkton and Judith Curry for example.
• It does not seem helpful or encyclopedic to describe Christopher Monkton as "outspoken". (There are spacing problems here too, and elsewhere in the article.)
• The reader may first discover that Watts is a TV and radio meteorologist in The Times quote. The principle of least surprise may be a good guide.
• The article is poorly structured. For instance "Reception" and "History" should not be conflated. (This would be a clear GA fail.)
• Patrick Michaels' credentials are misleading in that he is sceptical about AGW.
• The first paragraph of "Temperature records project" is not well sourced; the second paragraph goes off-topic. (This would be a clear GA fail.)

In terms of general disagreements about the article and related topics, I have two comments:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political journal or a news source; encyclopedic writing involves stepping back and looking at a topic from a distance (try to imagine how it would be viewed in 5 years time);
2. In an article written from the neutral point of view (which is a point of view) it should be hard to tell what the point of view of the editors is (beyond their support for the neutral point of view).

Geometry guy 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Can you expand a bit on the "history" and "reception" -- I don't think any of the other editors are working on these items, and I'd like to address them as much as I can. I was starting to work on the structure and moving things around a bit, and I was thinking of making the "History" section more of a background section or general information section but didn't know what to title it. The reviews, awards, reception, criticism was all dumped in one section that served as a catch-all for one sentence bits that didn't fit together well. I'd like to work these items throughout the article if I can find a place for them. Further comments would be welcome. I have never worked on GA or addressing peer review. Minor4th 21:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The first step would be to start a new section, entitled "Reception" or something similar. Move to that section both objective and subjective reviews of the site: objective reviews include webtraffic statistics, while subjective reviews include comments on the quality or popularity of the site in other sources. The history section could be retitled "Background", "Origins", or something similar. Geometry guy 22:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so would the History/Background section then just be info about how the blog started and when it moved to a new host, added contribs, etc? Where in the order of subheadings would you put the Reception section? And what about notable content or notable guest writers? I'll figure it out if you dont care to keep commenting, but your input is appreciated. Minor4th 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)