Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Antarctica

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Climate change in Antarctica

(
)
  • Source: Clem, Kyle R.; Fogt, Ryan L.; Turner, John; Lintner, Benjamin R.; Marshall, Gareth J.; Miller, James R.; Renwick, James A. (August 2020). "Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades". Nature Climate Change. 10 (8): 762–770. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..762C. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0815-z. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 220261150.
Improved to Good Article status by InformationToKnowledge (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC).

Feedback
  • Comment: @InformationToKnowledge: I want to review this nom, but please remember to complete your QPQ. You've got a very partial, preliminary review in progress with a query waiting for a reply. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Any interest in cleaning up the hook: "... that between 1990 and 2020, the South Pole warmed more than three times faster than the global average?" Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Reading through the article. I see it is labeled as {{EngvarB}}, but the English is clearly not American. Is this British, Canadian, Australian, or something else? I ask because some of the word choices, tenses, and sentences threw me for a loop. I was about to correct them when I realized this is acceptable in non-American English. Perhaps it should be labeled as such in the heading or talk page so someone like myself doesn't try to change it?
  • Some of the sources in this article are more than a decade old, making me wonder if the claims are still true. For example, in the "Temperature and weather changes" you write "some scientists continued to emphasize uncertainty", but that source is from 2015.
  • Not a fan of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes". It has a very in medias res approach which is confusing AF. "There were fewer than twenty permanent weather stations across the continent and only two in the continent's interior." But you aren't talking about today, you are talking prior to 1981 or some other more relatively recent date at the end of the 20th century. It would help if you could fix this.
  • Another editor has stepped in to complete a review for 2024 Tallahassee tornadoes. Because you didn't offer a full review, and only made a comment about the newness and length criteria, I think you might have to do another QPQ. Not sure about this, of course, so you may want to ask elsewhere, but from what I can tell a full review of the same article was offered by User:Cremastra.
  • The climate engineering intervention sentence in the "Long-term sea level rise" section is a bit of a red flag as it vastly simplifies this kind of thought experiment and future study and fails to note that the researchers don't support it. They write: "we do not advocate for deployment of ice sheet interventions in either the short or the medium term". I think it's important to briefly note that most scientists do not believe that anything less than drastic carbon reductions now can make a difference and that loosely mentioning this sci-fi scenario is slightly misleading without the caveats. This problem has come up many times before in other topics which is why I raise it here. It's a common talking point in climate denial that technology will easily solve the problem without reducing energy use, but this is not true. This is also a popular talking point within the effective accelerationism movement, whose advocates want to use as much fossil fuel as possible to bring about AGI. They are fond of promoting these climate engineering ideas without telling people that no scientist currently believes it can work. The argument is long and complex, but these people believe that we can get away with destroying the planet in the short term to create a planetary civilization in the long term; this will in turn allow us to fix everything we've broken. I think we need to be careful here not to feed into those ideas. For a longer, more detailed explanation of this argument, see tescrealism. When you listen to these proponents carefully, except for a small minority, they generally share an antagonism towards actualizing decarbonisation, and often promote climate engineering interventions in its place.
  • On the Antarctic continent, plants are mainly found in coastal areas; the commonest plants are lichens (386 known species), followed by mosses (133 species) and ice algae, as well as liverworts (27 species). Lichens and ice algae are not plants.
  • You've got Clem et al. 2020 cited for your hook up above, but your hook seems to derive specifically from Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020, which preceded Clem et al. You've also got both cited in the article for the hook. Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020 says: "The end result is a warming rate at the South Pole during 1989–2018 more than three times the global rate (+0.6 °C per decade versus +0.2 °C per decade)", or "in the past 30 years, the South Pole has been warming at over three times the global rate". Clem at al. 2020: "Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 ± 0.34 °C per decade, more than three times the global average." Just noting this as it isn't explicit.
  • Finding a lot of issues/typos.[1] Please review.

@Viriditas: Well, I was certainly hoping for a smoother review, but I appreciate the effort invested into this. If you don't mind, it'll probably take me another day or two to start responding to this in detail - not in the least so that I can find another QPQ, where I could invest the same kind of effort. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the same thing happened to me on a QPQ about a month ago and I had to find another one right quick. One way to prevent that from happening is to use the review template in the header and to put question marks in that areas that are unknown and then mention in the review that it is still in progress and you haven't yet finished. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Promoted to GA (new and long enough); sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free; hook is cited and interesting, I think it could benefit from an image of a graph showing the warming, but it would have to be zoomed in to work; others may disagree. Could a different image work? I don't know. I made a list of issues in the article up above in the feedback section, although I fixed most of them. I would recommend that you review my changes to make sure I didn't accidentally mess anything up. I would be happier if you were able to fix the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes" as I specified in the feedback up above, as it really doesn't work for me. We're just waiting on a new QPQ to move forward and perhaps a slight fix to the hook, otherwise I think we are pretty close to done. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: We are waiting on a simple QPQ. Can you check that the original QPQ was not a full review? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @InformationToKnowledge: I agree with Viriditas that the wikilinked QPQ was not a full review. Please provide another QPQ. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I should also point out that the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes" needs copyediting per the above concerns. Perhaps User:Femke can help as she is an expert in this topic area. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Viriditas: thanks for your review here! I fixed one error with your ce. In terms of an image on temperature rise, it's tough to find a good one, and I believe the current image is a better representation of the topic. I did finally find a recent paper on the temperature rise (see Figure 3), which might be useable for the first paragraph. I'm happy to help copyedit a bit if ITK doesn't return to editing. My fingers are itching to make the lead shorter too, as its 600 words are a bit intimidating to me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree with you about the lead. I am also happy to donate a QPQ if that is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The literature on temperature seems a bit contradictory, so I've asked the author of the above study to clarify if there is now consensus on how much temperatures have gone up, if it has gone up at all.. There is an issue with failed verification in the paragraph you suggested I copyedit, so I'll see first what ITK thinks. That section can be shortened if we dwell less on very old debates, and more on the current knowledge around temperature changes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to a QPQ donation, largely because we need to help ITK learn how to do full reviews and gain reviewing experience. QPQ donations should really used sparingly and only for exceptional cases where the nominator can't do a QPQ for exceptional reasons (for example, multi-article hooks with several bolded links). Donating a QPQ at this stage would prevent ITK from gaining the experience needed to make their future reviews more complete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I just realized that ITK hasn't edited since March 10, which is a problem. Normally I'd be disinclined to support a QPQ donation, but in this case this might be one of those exceptional cases when one is understandable. The problem is that Femke has raised concerns about the content of the article as well as some things that need to be verified. If those issues can be resolved and ITK doesn't return, maybe then this can be passed with a donated QPQ. Otherwise, this may have to be failed. Courtesy ping to Viriditas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Given the original nominator remains MIA, assuming Femke is willing to adopt the nomination, we can probably wait a few days to see if Femke will address the concerns. Otherwise, this will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I would oppose closing this as stale since the nom has only been open for several weeks, not several months. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
While WP:DYKTIMEOUT talks about two months, it is part of reviewer discretion to mark for closure nominations that do not have a reasonable path forward, even if two months have yet to pass. Often, the nominator being inactive without another editor being willing to adopt the nomination can count as such. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
There's no hurry. If you like, you can start a discussion on the main talk page for outside input. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Just to make things clear: Femke, are you open to adopting the nomination in ITK's absence? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I am, but giving them a bit more time to take it up themselves if that's okay. Not yet got a response from the author whose paper contradicts the first paragraph if I understand correctly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • It's been over a week since the last comment here and ITK has yet to return. Unless they return, or Femke officially adopts the nomination, enough time has passed and the nomination was given a fair chance. But as it stands, there appears to be no path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Climate_change_in_Antarctica&oldid=1284099500"