Talk:Answers Research Journal/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I can review this. Initial indications are that it meets GA, but I will do more analysis this week. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954, thank you very much for taking up this review. If you have feedback for me, I most likely won’t be able to respond until July 8th. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are:
- A 2009 article
spuriouslyproposes - His thesis,
incorrectly
- A 2009 article
- In both cases it could be argued that a source is needed for the word I have stricken out. Those were the most obvious, please go through and check, letting the sourced material tell the story -- which is clearly very strong. Please let me know when you are done Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I’m not the one who added “spuriously” and I agree it should be removed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- But I believe “incorrectly” is not OR. We always describe climate change denialism in such terms. The cited source verifies it as well:
” For example, in its “research journal” is this flat statement: [climate thesis].Simple, eh? Completely wrong, but simple
. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- @Ldm1954: So besides those two examples, do you have any other concerns? I’m not seeing much instances of non-neutral language. Certainly, the reception is pretty negative but all those statements are attributed, so it complies with NPOV. Do you have objections to “not scientifically sound”; “unscientific”; “journal's objective is not scientific inquiry”? We have to remember that WP:FRINGE comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will go over it carefully tomorrow (or Monday). Ldm1954 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954: So besides those two examples, do you have any other concerns? I’m not seeing much instances of non-neutral language. Certainly, the reception is pretty negative but all those statements are attributed, so it complies with NPOV. Do you have objections to “not scientifically sound”; “unscientific”; “journal's objective is not scientific inquiry”? We have to remember that WP:FRINGE comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- But I believe “incorrectly” is not OR. We always describe climate change denialism in such terms. The cited source verifies it as well:
- Yeah I’m not the one who added “spuriously” and I agree it should be removed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are: