Talk:World Climate Research Programme

Environment Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

Untitled

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is a request for an COI edit. Please see the proposed updated article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koalava/sandbox/wcrpdraft and my disclaimer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koalava . To be honest, the current article and those of many of its related programs have major quality issues, and so I attempted to resolve some of these through a COI request.

Hi Koalava, your draft looks like a well-structured and NPOV article, and definitely a big improvement over the current one. Two points that I think could do with some improvement:

- The larger part of the sourcing is to the organization's own website/publications, which (as I am sure you are aware) is perfectly fine for non-controversial data on organization structure, mandate etc. However, it would be good if use could be made of some more secondary sources - i.e., what others have written about the org as opposed to what is says about itself. Notability shouldn't really be in question for an org of this size, but strictly speaking that type of outside coverage is required to establish it in the article. Do you think you could find some such?

- Naked weblinks in the references are not ideal, as the reference entry gives no indication of content or author, and they tend to fall prey to WP:LINKROT. These should be formatted as template references, using Template:Cite web. That's not a big issue and I can do it if you prefer. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a response from the requesting editor after the last question and suggestions made by Elmidae. In that case I'm setting the request as answered. The COI editor is free to reopen at will. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I will, in the new year, turn to finding additional secondary sources as you suggested and also have a look at the template references, which are new to me. Thank you very much for having taken the time! Koalava (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now live with the improvements suggested by Elmidae. Thanks to both Elmidae and Spintendo for your comments. Koalava (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]