Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Assessment
 | Environment Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Can any non-member of this project post a WikiProject Environment template on an article Talk page and also assess the article?[edit]
To be specific, anonymous user Jbntj, who is not listed as a member of this project, posted a WikiProject Environment template of the Talk page of Fossil fuel power plant some time ago and also assessed it as a Stub Class. Is that proper? I cannot imagine anyone considering Fossil fuel power plant to be a Stub Class. It is a very large article with 16 sections, numerous diagrams, photos and references.
I might add that anonymous user Jbntj also added a WikiProject Climate Change template to Fossil fuel power plant, altho he is also not listed as a participant in that project.
And recently, he added a Cleanup tag to Fossil fuel power plant and refuses to explain why on the Talk page of that article other than to say the article is "dirty".
A very careful reading of the "Contributions" page of anonymous user Jbntj discloses that he has done this sort of thing on many energy related articles. In my opinion, he is very biased against use of coal or oil because he feels they bear a major responsibility for global warming. Wikipedia has dozens of articles devoted to global warming and climate change where anyone can contribute content or discuss their feelings about coal and oil. However, I don't believe posting WikiProject templates on technical articles about the use of coal and oil is a proper method of trying to promote biased opinions against such articles. Fossil fuel power plants are a fact of life and Wikipedians have every right to create and to contribute NPOV content to technical articles explaining how coal and oil fired power plants are designed and used.
I will be very interested to learn what members of this WikiProject Environment have to say about my above comments. In particular, I would like to hear from Alex, OhanaUnited and Anlace.
Assessment examples[edit]
Can I ask for someone who feels reasonably good at assessments change the examples to point to dated versions rather than the latest versions please. Thanks Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear environmentalists: The above article hasn't been edited for a long time and will soon be deleted. Is there a reason to save it? If so, can someone who knows about this area please fix it up? Thanks, —Anne Delong (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Earth hasn't been classified on the importance scale. I haven't done it myself because I'm not familiar in this area. JerrySa1 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)