Talk:Kyoto Protocol/GA1

GA Sweeps Review

This article was promoted to Good article status on June 5, 2006. I am unable to find an actual review outlining how this article meets the six good article criteria. So I will outline that below:

1. Well-written: While there don't appear to be any major spelling errors, the grammar isn't exactly up to par. The opening sentence in the lead is a bit of a run-on, and the lead is poorly-written and organized. Per WP:LEAD, this section should be a good introduction to the article and provide a summary. The article is also not very well organized. The 'details of the agreement' section has multiple second-level headings, some of which are very short with little text. Try to focus on keeping to a couple of good, cohesive main sections, using the second-level headings only when necessary. The request for expansion tag in the objectives section needs to be addressed in order to retain GA status (those five principle concepts also need a citation).

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: While the article does contain a good number of reliable sources in its citations, there are a lot of gaps. There are some entire sections and subsections that have zero, or very few, citations. There are also several "citation needed" tags that have been sprinkled about. These must all be dealt with.

3. Broad in its coverage: The article does appear to cover the topic well, but it's difficult to properly evaluate how broad it really is because of the poor organization. It seems like a lot of sections were added near the end of the article, and the consistency and cohesiveness has been lost. I think if editors focused on a few core topics as major headings, and tried to avoid the multiple sub-headings and sub-sub-headings, things will come together much better and it will be far easier to evaluate this properly. As of right now, I would have to fail this article on criterion 3.

4. Neutral: The article started to appear to adhere to WP:NPOV, but the 'support' and 'opposition' sections, I have a problem with. Their insufficiently cited and poorly written with lots of ambiguous phrases. I would avoid having specific main sections for support and opposition, personally. The pros and cons of various aspects of this protocol should be incorporated into other sections as appropriate.

5. Stable: I see quite a bit of vandalism by anonymous editors in the past month or so, but I don't see any major edit wars or WP:3RR violations. So I think the article would pass this criteria.

6. Illustrations & Images: The images are tagged appropriately with copyright tags. The article passes this criteria. Although the 'global trends' image has several graphs that might be better off if split into individual images, rather than putting all five charts in one image file.

Overall, I think a lot of work is needed for this article to retain its GA status, and I would not pass it if it were nominated today. I will leave this GA Sweeps Review in an open/on hold situation currently, and check it again on June 5, 2009. If the article's issues have not been addressed by then, it will be demoted to B-class. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no progress has been made, and it's June 12. Article delisted. Once it meets the GA criteria again, it can be renominated at WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"4. Neutral: The article started to appear to adhere to WP:NPOV, but the 'support' and 'opposition' sections, I have a problem with. Their insufficiently cited and poorly written with lots of ambiguous phrases. I would avoid having specific main sections for support and opposition, personally. The pros and cons of various aspects of this protocol should be incorporated into other sections as appropriate."

Totally agree, opposition section is weak and does not cover any actual criticism. Kasaalan (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]