Talk:People's Climate Movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cfaramarzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Henry's Review

Great job with the first draft of your article! I really like the organization of your draft, especially it is very easy to follow and read through. Please see below for some of my comments:

• For the "Background" section, I think some of the information here are very similar to the introduction of the existing Wikipedia article. Personally I think it may be worth for you to transfer some of your languages to the introduction instead of creating a new section.
• For the "purpose" section, there is a statement that needs citation. "As of 2017, many individuals felt that public awareness of climate change was concerningly low".
• For many of those purposes, I think the language is very persuasive, which is not compatible to Wikipedia guideline. Example: Our society must make sure that...; It is crucial that we...;it’s important that..
• For "Response/effects" section, I was assuming that you would talk about the response or effects of the protest, but it talks about the general response to lack of action on climate changes and President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This is very confusing and I would recommend more clarifications on this section.

Overall, great work! H.G. 05:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cfaramarzi's Peer Review

What accomplishes well: Well done on structuring the article and organizing different sections! I'm impressed by human endeavors of confronting climate change. It's very nice to have a lead section introducing the purpose of the march, the start of these controversial issues and the discussion triggered by it.

What could be improved: I suggest trying to avoid any conclusions or present some particular point of view to convince the audience. For example, you may want to reword the following sentences start with: "It is important that our economy...", "It is crucial that we respond to...", "Jobs which are... must have the ability to... must be focused on... and must pay...", "Our society must make sure that everyone...", "If... are a result of the climate crisis", etc. These phrases don't sound neutral. Another way is to add some negative sound from conservative. --Thesubtleart (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Farmarzi Peer Review

Great article, it was a pleasure reading, here are some of my comments/things to improve upon:

• The lead section that you open up with titled "Purpose" is choppy in its style. For instance you begin the paragraph with "chance for people to stand up..." since I read the article and know what your topic is it isn't difficult for me to know what your talking about but beginning with " This movement was a chance for people to stand up....." sounds more polished and completed.
• You also tend to use language here that leans to one side more than another and aims to persuade the reader. The use of phrases like "It is important that our economy transforms", "The initiative must uplift communities", and "It is crucial that we respond to climate crises compassionately" eat away at the neutrality of your article. Rather you should list these as the movement's platform like, "The participants of this movement believe the importance the the economy transforms."
• I like the layout of the movements platforms and think it would be a great addition to the existing article which only has sections on each state where the movement has a presence.
• Your sources are also great in that they are all scholarly sources and fit within the requirements of the wikipedia guidelines.

(Armand Bogossian (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Climate March Peer Review- Samir naqvi

I liked the introduction, but the first sentence should have a noun, such as The peoples March was a chance.. Other than that, it was solid. I would reformat the 6 principles in some way, so it does not feel like you are imposing your opinion on others, but instead make it more informative. In fact, I noticed this theme throughout your article of making it seem like you take a political position. I also do not think you should use the word "nontrivial", as this an opinion. Other than that, I thought the organization and background section, but I would probably reorder the background to the beginning. 'who is 16 years old' sounds weird. Overall, I really enjoyed this article and thought your sources were solid. Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirnaqvi (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Siddharth Kumaran

• This was a well written article
• You have clear, to-the-point sentences
• In your section describing the "purpose of the march," please further make clear that these are not your own opinions but rather an objective statement because it seems like they are opinionated.
• You have a good variety of sources
• Add more details to "Response/effects"

Siddkumaran (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lulu's Peer Review

I agree with a lot of the other reviews on how this is a really good start and the formatting and structure is really good. But you guys should be careful with how you phrase it. It seems to be coming from your point of view rather than from a 'neutral' point of view.

Purpose:

• I think the second half of the paragraph starting from 'As of 2017' is really good and is a good example of using sources and information and stating facts. It also remains pretty neutral. Other things to watch out for though are....
• 'Chance for people to stand up and express their convictions and have an impact on the political atmosphere so we can save the Earth’s atmosphere.' Make sure this is a complete sentence. Also don't use personal pronouns like 'we'
• You are stating a lot of opinions but rather it should all be cited information. I.e. the first line should come from a source that says that is the purpose rather than what the writer believes the purpose is. For example in the second line is says 'People saw' but it should be more specific what people? and how do you know this?
• Also the first source seems to just lead to a general site but I don't see any of the information you have talked about so make sure to only include sources that are relevant and actually include the information you are referring to.
• In each of the sections where you guys are listing out the specific goals I would not include any personal pronouns like 'we', 'our', 'us'. Some of the sections do a really good job of doing this but some of the others do use these words so just be wary of that!

Organization:

• The line that says: 'Organizing a march with over 220,000 attendees is nontrivial [5]. To maximize their impact, the organizers relied heavily on 2 tactics...' seems a little bit strange and opinion heavy so you might want to explain the first sentence a little more. For the second sentence i think you can also reorganize it to say 'the organizers relied heavily on two tactics to maximize their impact..."

Response/effects:

• maybe make effects also capitalized? and maybe change the title to 'Response and Effects'
• Also instead of saying 'who is 16-years-old' you might want to say 'was 16-years-old' because you want the article to be read at any year and still be factual, so maybe say she was 16 at the time or just not include it.

Overall, it's a really good start! Another recommendation of a section to include is a critiques section relating to people or sources that think negatively toward the march. Lulutao (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Moves

@Sam Sailor: Can you please summarize what just happened here? I see lots of page moves in my watchlist, but was an article replaced with something created more recently, or...? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, it's in Doomsdayer520's rationale in the edit summary. Basically, we got rid of the miscapped DAB by swapping. Sam Sailor 19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, I just converted People's Climate March into a disambiguation page. Is this correct? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't People's Climate Movement (Organization) redirect to People's Climate Movement? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC) I've redirected People's Climate Movement (Organization) to People's Climate Movement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, yes, none of the marches are the primary topic and both articles have a hatnote, looks fine to me. Thanks for fixing the redirect. Sam Sailor 05:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)