Talk:Under2 Coalition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anthos16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi, your instructor asked that I assess this article for feedback.

Generally, I find the article to be a reasonable Start-class article on the topic: it provides, the necessary minimal information I need to understand it, with a brief introductorary paragraph, minimal description of the context of the agreement, and the list of signers. However, if I wanted to research the agreement further, I don't think the article provides the reader sufficient context. Here are a few initial comments in reading/reviewing the article:

First, I do not understand the various reactions and opinions related to the agreement. You only talk about one, American politician's opinion about the agreement. Wouldn't there be reaction from more jurisdictions? Wouldn't some governments respond to the action? Are other press organizations, or is this action just something that promotes California's role in mitigating climate change? I would think that at least some reporting at the time or afterwards would cover such topics.
Second, for an international relations article, the perspective is very American-centric: the emphasis on the California partnership, and a lack of sources from elsewhere in the world, seems like you are missing something in your research. (There is more international press via Google News Search
The focus on popular press sources, seems to not be looking beyond a simple Google search. A search in Google Scholar finds at least a couple more academic articles: I would strongly recommend using your library's databases. There is more coverage of this, I promise: and you are missing it.
There isn't much that helps contextualize the agreement in a landscape of similar climate agreements: what comes before and after it? How does it respond or interact with other agreements? Can you use Wiki-links to these other articles about agreements or concerns from different countries not addressing climate change (cough, cough, United States government being roadblocked by a Republican congress).
Source #5, the Gillis Source from the New York Times, doesn't support the claim of the sentence its used in: you don't need to prove that the IPCC report made a finding, rather, you need to show that the MOU responds to that finding. I didn't spot check any other sources: that was my first, but it doesn't support your discussion of this particular topic.

All and all, these particular points of feedback, alongside the general read of the article suggest that you need to do deeper research, that provides more context (likely broken into several different sections) to ensure that you are covering the full depth of the topic. If you have any more questions, or need clarifcations on my feedback: please let me know, Sadads (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]