Talk:United States Climate Alliance

List of Climate Mayors

https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097

This is the list of all mayors who have entered the group. Could use help adding them into the member list + links to their pages.

2601:603:1400:3FDD:B463:99ED:9FF2:E21B (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• It appears that the mayors' group is a different entity, called "Mayors' National Climate Action Agenda" (http://www.climate-mayors.org/). There may be some similarity and I'll add a see also entry for them; today at least they are working in concert but the mayors' group is an older entity. Avram (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Map colors

Do the different shades of green signify something? If not, why are the member states shaded differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.173.3 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. It is explained in the article, and in the key to the map.Fconaway (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on changing the colors of the states that are in the alliance? I feel like this might be seen as somewhat democrat-centric in what is supposed to be a bipartisan organisation. Maybe a bright green? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.244.77 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they (the proposed green colors) not be akin to the Green Party of the United States then? I don't really care on the colors but do not feel this should be politicalized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Because green is more commonly associated with green energy (especially in this context) than the green party itself. Plus, they hold no seats so I don't think many people would make the logical leap. It was only a suggestion anyway - an attempt to make it so people visiting this page wouldn't immediately associate the group with Partisanship, especially now several republican states have joined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.244.77 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that members should all be green as that is their goal and potential member a lighter green; the blue of members could imply that they're Democrats. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 06:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay sure why not, now that a state governor has declined to join we need to come up with another color anyways. I suggest green for "joined", light green for "potential", light red for "declined", and gray for "not yet known". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Also, which state declined to join? -- sion8 ^{talk page} Sion8 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete map

The map should be showing 10 states. How can the states shown on the map be expanded?Fconaway (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Ypna (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for some good work here. Now all states are shown on the map, albeit unclearly. Apparently Massachusetts and Rhode Island are shown correctly.Fconaway (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the text says 9 states, while 10 are listed. The inconsistency needs to be corrected.Fconaway (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Legality / Constitutionality

User:69.137.160.239 has been adding a section about legality:

States are prohibited from "enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3[6]

This is a fair question and I'm sure something that has been raised elsewhere, but I and others have been removing it for lack of reliable sourcing to make it not a statement of original research WP:NOR. Rather than continuing to revert, is there a source out there that is raising the question of legality? If so, let's get that added to the article. If not, I think we have to treat the statement as original research. -- Avram (talk)

Here's an opinion piece from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/02/states-climate-alliance-raises-questions-about-the-constitutions-interstate-compacts-clause/

The important detail concerning the Alliance's legality re the Interstate Compact Clause is that their "compact", insofar as it exists, is merely a non-binding statement of goals. The Alliance has not proposed any enforcement mechanism for states failing to meet their reduction standards, much as the Paris Agreement itself has not. 2601:448:C000:F0E0:E89C:9D68:56D4:727C (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any legal challenge is forthcoming: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/governors-mayors-paris-climate/ "'If a mayor or a governor wants to enact a policy that's, on a range of issues, they're accountable to their own voters and that's what they should do,' White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Friday. 'We believe in states' rights and so if a locality, a municipality or a state wants to enact a policy that their voters or their constituents believe in than that's, that's what they should do.'" 2601:448:C000:F0E0:E89C:9D68:56D4:727C (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi from germany,

I guess these states like california do not really want sign the Paris agreement formally, but they want to fulfill the contents, which I really appreciate. We must thank california for giving pressure to the car manufactures to improve the engines, so I guess it is not so much a legal issue

best regards, Horst

Interstate compact http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/the_compact_clause.pdf http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=delpf Kaihsu (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

These states don't seem to be entering into the Paris Agreement as much as they are following it. So, hypothetically they could go even further than the Agreement says they should like Minnesota has done before there was even an agreement or ignore some things that the Paris Agreement says countries should do. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Connecticut

Gov. Malloy just announced Connecticut would be joining the USCA (http://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2017/06-2017/Gov-Malloy-Adds-CT-to-Coalition-of-States-Committed-to-Upholding-the-Paris-Climate-Agreement). I've updated the map and someone has added it to the list on this page with a source, but the population and other figures need updating. Thanks! Redtitan 18:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone just did that. Kudos! Redtitan 18:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all 10 cities

People keep re-adding the claim that all 10 of the country's largest cities are members of the Mayors Climate Action Agenda. That is not true, because San Diego is not listed on the organization's website http://www.climate-mayors.org/ as a member. (There is a star on their map in the general area of San Diego, but that represents the nearby city of Chula Vista.) The correct information is that 9 out of the country's 10 largest cities are members of the Mayors Climate Action Agenda.

I have actually written to the mayor of San Diego suggesting that he join, but until that happens, San Diego is not a member, and please stop falsely claiming that all 10 of the country's largest cities are members. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinction between "[indicating] support for the objectives of the [United States Climate] alliance" (as the article states) and being a member of MNCAA. No version of this article has ever explicitly indicated that San Diego is a member of MNCAA. That is a false inference. It does say that all 10 cities have "indicated support for the objectives of the alliance," which they have. Idisestablish (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem may be that the website of the MCAA has not been updated in two years so its membership listing is not current. There is a source called Medium which seems to speak for the group, and they reproduce a letter, now cited in the article [1] , that is signed by the mayor of San Diego as well as others. I think that can be taken as evidence that San Diego is on board and I withdraw my objection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oregon

When does Oregon qualify as having joined the USCA? Here is a report from Oregon Public Broadcasting that says the governor, Kate Brown, has committed to the USCA. Is there a threshold to consider a state a member state? ><http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-paris-climate-change-goals-kate-brown/>(Daniel.james.westcott (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC))

I just saw that, seeing it looks legit I have gone ahead with the addition. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

I don't think Pureto Rico is a US state or city. Why is it listed in the table and infographic? 146.198.224.191 (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia for that matter, are sometimes accorded a kind of courtesy status comparable to that of a state - for example at political party conventions. I don't see any problem with listing them here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are several problems that arise from Puerto Rico's inclusion, especially now that it is part of the alliance.

• The number we are using for total US emissions does not (to my knowledge) include emissions from non-states. However, we are counting Puerto Rico's emissions as a percentage of that number (i.e. 0.52%). Therefore, I'm going to bar out PR's percentage column for now, pending further discussion.
• In the opening section and in the infobox, we include numbers on alliance contribution to GDP and percent of US population.
  • Puerto Rico has its own GDP, so I've discluded PR in the GDP percent (currently 36.3%). I'm not convinced this is ideal, though. Note that I did include Puerto Rico's GDP in the infobox since that's simply a total of all member GDPs.
  • I believe that US population numbers include Puerto Rico, so I've included PR in the alliance/US number (currently 31.4%).

Joel Amos (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, thus it belongs on a table/infographic dedicated to the states AND territories of the US that are members of the US Climate Alliance HiMrObama (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That is true but not relevant to what I've said above. Please refrain from reverting any further edits before responding to the concerns I've laid out. Joel Amos (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, it is unfair to exclude Puerto Rico (an actual territory of the United States) from being considered as an equal piece of the US. If you still don't understand this, maybe take up your argument with California Governor Jerry Brown, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, or Washington Governor Jay Inslee because I am sure that they would be glad to tell you about the importance of treating every US citizen as equal people. Thank you for your understanding and I hope you revert your last edit. If not, I will and I hope you have the decency to not revert it yet again. Best regards HiMrObama (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with you, but you miss the point of contention. My point is that the percentage column is based on 100%, but the value being used for 100% includes only state emissions. This is why it doesn't work to include Puerto Rico's percentage; it's simply not a fraction of the same "100%" in question. Does that make sense? In other words, in order to include Puerto Rico's percent contribution of emissions, our number for total US emissions would have to include the emissions of both states and territories. Joel Amos (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington DC

Washington DC is (as a city) already member of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda. Do anyone know if they can now also join the United States Climate Alliance as a district? If the answer is no, we should not list them as a potential member in the article - and remove the Washington DC circle from the "member map" in the infobox. Our Carbon dioxide emission source provides data for Washington DC, but feature no data for the 5 territories (incl. Puerto Rico). But I do not know if this data source can help to solve the question about their eligibility to the US Climate Alliance? Danish Expert (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

See my answer above about Puerto Rico. Washington is a city; the District of Columbia is a federal territory comparable in some ways to a state; the mayor of Washington seems to be the elected officer over both. For now I would agree with listing them as "potential" and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Virginia in the map and table

In the map at the top showing which states have officially joined the USCA, Virginia is shown in green, which according to the legend means that "governing officials have expressed support for the Paris Agreement". However, in the "Members" table, Virginia is listed as an actual member. Which one is wrong? --Joshualouie711^talk 18:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Virginia is a member of the US Climate Alliance. I'm a resident of Virginia and can confirm we joined (and I have many sources on that). The map just needs to be updated --booklover19a^talk 22:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing the map

Since this is a current event, the map of which states are in the US Climate Alliance needs to be updated. Many states that have previously shown interest in the US Climate Alliance have since joined. How would I go about updating the map? Thanks! Booklover19a (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)booklover19a

I'm not sure who has been updating the map, but if you post your sources here, it would help them keep it up to date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Washington DC to members list?

It seems to me Washington DC just joined the alliance, according to a Washington Post article published only an hour ago. I think its time to move it from a potential member to the actual members list. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you refer to this article, then the answer is NO. On 5 June, Bowser reaffirmed DC's commitment to uphold the Paris Agreement as part of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda, by signing this executive order. So far DC did not join the US Climate Alliance.
The above reply from MelanieN suggest we can consider DC to be a "potential member" of the Climate Alliance (comprising states and territories - but no cities), although personally I am still a bit uncertain whether or not the US Climate Alliance will ever classify DC as a territory being eligible to join their club.
Yet, I accept it still might be theoretical possible perhaps for DC (as the only city also being a territorial district) at some point of time also to become a member of the US Climate Alliance as a territorial district, if they make an outreaching push for this to happen. Would be nice if journalists ask one of the founding members of the Climate Alliance: If DC can ever become a climate alliance member due to only having the seize of a city?. For now, we just have to wait and see how this unfolds. Danish Expert (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above - wait and see. Someone can state their intention to join; it will be up to the Alliance itself whether to accept them as members. Does the Alliance have a web page or anything where we can check? I think it is too new. Here is a CBS News listing of members but it is out of date. In the meantime I think we probably have to accept it if a governor or other chief executive says "we have joined the United States Climate Alliance"; absent such a definite statement we should keep them under potential members. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also hope they soon create an official USCA website. For now, the Washington governor apparently make the press releases on behalf of USCA. The latest from June 5, listed the names of all the 13 states/territories so far having joined USCA. Danish Expert (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

USCA official website finally now was launched on 13 July 2017. Infobox is now updated with this official website link, and it shall from now on be deemed the only primary source to list Member States of the alliance. Danish Expert (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Declined" section

I disagree with the inclusion of a "declined" section in this article. Let's keep it to those that have joined or might join. The Alliance is a voluntary thing, there is no need to account for the position (or lack of a position) of all 50 governors (and a few other possible candidates). In fact including this could seem like kind of a Hall of Shame. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel it gives the article a neutral point of view though and "hall of shame" is a matter of a personal view. We could exclude New Hampshire yes but then we would have readers asking "why did you not mention it?". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think MelanieN is right. Also, the heading "potential" is not really right. Any state is a potential member, even if they have previously stated that they would not join. The heading should indicate that they publicly expressed support. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Why did you not mention it"? This article does not have to account for every state, including those who have said "not interested" and even those where the governor has not said anything at all. If they aren't mentioned, it's because they haven't identified themselves as members or potential members. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but I feel that the article should be as inclusive as possible. Just giving the side of the states that have opted in doesn't speak for the other side of the spectrum. At the very least we should have state governors who have expressed an opinion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't feel right to me but while searching for new opinions on the matter I cam across New Hampshire. For the most part governors across the country have been silent on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a whole table. You could just list those who declined in a narrative sentence up under the main heading "Members". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough as it is only one state, go ahead and make the change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, done. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Good solution! --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Automated Excel spreadsheet for figures

Here's the spreadsheet: US Climate Alliance.xlsx

All you have to do is add or remove states from the first two rows, and all of the numbers should update accordingly. Upon adding a state, you must click the filter button in row 8 to include that state in the results. Bolded values should appear somewhere in this article. Joel Amos (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

New Mexico, Iowa, Illinois, and Maine

I can't find any statements from the governors of these states in support of the Paris agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.238.142 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• The National Geographic reference provided in the article just includes them in a map, but includes no note of the actual support. I followed up specifically on Illinois and found only one article (http://newschannel20.com/news/local/illinois-officials-push-for-state-to-join-us-climate-alliance), and that article is just saying that some officials pushed for joining, not that the governor said anything of the sort - Avram (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The source for that piece is a letter from many officials to the governor: https://illinoiscomptroller.gov/news-portal/illinois-leaders-call-on-governor-bruce-rauner-to-join-the-u-s-climate-alliance/#.WUGo8hPytE4 - Avram (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The article says that the governors have "pledged their states' support for the Paris Agreement," and that 5 are Democrats, 6 are Republicans. This is factually incorrect. 207.172.238.142 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Official website and future work on article

USCA official website finally was launched on 13 July 2017. Infobox is now updated with this official website link. The website will feature info on:

1. State actions to address climate change
2. Composition of the Alliance (List of Members)
3. Member commitments
4. Guiding principles
5. Updates on the progress members are making to meet or exceed the emission reductions targets of the Paris Agreement.

Its a source for future update work on the article. In example, we might already now consider to create a subchapter entitled "Guiding principles", as 3 such guiding principles now has been announced. Danish Expert (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

===Is there a source for Pennsylvania opting out of the petition to encourage the president to reconsider the Paris Agreement decision? Also, the usage of "boasts" in reference to the claims made by the US climate alliance lacks neutrality. Do you think changing the word to "claims" or taking that part out altogether (since it is a primary source) would be better? Picta213 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Other states and territories with greenhouse gas reduction targets" to the map

Should we do this? I think it's a good idea as there is already a subsection in the article for it. 24.5.219.24 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Alternatively, we might however also consider merging the subchapter Other states and territories supporting the Paris Agreement into the last subchapter Other states and territories with greenhouse gas reduction targets. So that only this latter category (Other states and territories with GHG reduction targets) is referred to in the map as one merged (more broad) group of "potential members".

In my point of view, all states working with GHG reduction targets (and climate action plans) are potential members of the US climate alliance, as they already have established some serious climate action work in their state. Whether or not the governor has expressed public support for the Paris Agreement is also of some interest, but if its just a PR-stunt to score some cheap political points (without any consequence for the existing climate action work in their state), one might argue this "support data" in itself can be irrelevant. States with existence of an already set statewide GHG reduction target is for sure important also to have a color for in the map. My mind is just still undecided if we should map two categories of "potential members" in the map, or just merge it into one (Other states and territories with GHG reduction targets). Right now I tend to favor we map two categories and two colors of "potential members", according to how the article currently display these categories (but after some additional consideration, I might change my mind and !vote for the merger alternative as a better solution). Let's debate it for a couple of days, before we change the map. Danish Expert (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. Personally, I think we Should have three categories on the map: USCA members, states outside the USCA which have emissions reduction targets, and those outside the USCA who support it, but do not have targets. Greg (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

After additional consideration, I now also fully support multiple map categories. I found this interesting CarbonBrief article, basically utilizing the same categorizing approach. Another interesting source I found was this GUIDE TO THE CLEAN POWER PLAN IN THE COURTS, which list 27 states as CPP-opponents and 18 states as CPP-supporters in the ongoing supreme court case (with 5 states being neutral). As USCA-membership entails a pledge of support for achieving the state specific CPP-targets, we might also consider adding this CPP info to the article (and/or consider to have a category which also include pledge for CPP-support). However, this might get a bit messy, because not all USCA-members are CPP-supporters in the court case (as we have 1 USCA member: Colorado, which is listed as a CPP-opponent in the court case). In total we also have 6 CPP-supporting non USCA-member states (Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico), which all -except Iowa- additionally have set some state specific GHG reduction targets. So to toss in CPP-support in the supreme court case as an additional category (or part as a category), might be a bad idea. I can however support the 4 proposed (and so far fully supported) categories:

1) USCA-members (blue).

2) States/territories with GHG reduction targets (green).

3) States/territories without GHG reduction targets expressing support for the Paris Agreement (yellow).

4) Other states/territories (red).

If no objections to the above 4 categories are posted before the end of Aug.12, I will update the map and article accordingly (but of course without creating a subchapter for the fourth category). Danish Expert (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection to the categories, but can I suggest grey rather than red for category 4, so that red-green colour-blind readers know what's going on. Thanks for doing the legwork here! Greg (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Greg, I think that gray is better for the last category; other than that, I 100% agree with Danish Expert's proposal. 2601:644:8502:EC0:9DF3:1EAF:295F:EB0F (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OK will update accordingly on August 14, when I have found GHG target info for some additional states. My work so far has resulted in acknowledgement that we have 5 types of targets:

1. Law enforced.
2. Executive order by governor.
3. Adopted by state government and utilized in periodic climate action progress report.
4. Recommended to state government in a recently released climate action report (no more than 5 years old), but with confirmation yet to arrive that it has been truly adopted by publication of a subsequent periodic climate action progress report.
5. Recommended to state government in a more than 5 year old climate action report, with no confirmation that it was ever adopted by publication of a subsequent periodic climate action progress report. Or states giving an explicit announcement that the initial target has been deleted without setting a new.

The article and map will approve GHG reduction targets falling into category 1+2+3+4. A state like Vermont has GHG targets both in category 1+3. States in category 4 will be given benefit of the doubt, until more than 5 years have lapsed after their latest published climate action report or progress report - without referring to a still active GHG target for the state. Category 5 (with a previous target but no active target) include states like Pennsylvania + Montana.

A state like New Hampshire is on the borderline of category 5 (still not sure whether it should be 4 or 5). New Hampshire confirmed and utilized their "2009 recommended target" by a progress report in June 2012, but no progress reports were published ever since, and the body responsible for progress reports was shut down in 2012. The former democratic governor of New Hampshire then signed onto her state becoming a Under2 MOU member in 2015 (herby pledging support of a target compliant with 80% reduction in 2050, and setting a 2030 target on the trajectory to reach this 2050-target when utilizing the starting point of current emission levels). But NH is still stuck in the process to ratify its membership of this organisation as they have not published an "appendix" to Under2 MOU, and the recently elected republican governor of New Hampshire apparently has decided to stall this process (without making any announcement about it, just kill it quietly). With all this in mind, I am on the borderline to declare the NH target for being inactive. Still a bit hesitant about it, though, as NH is a confirmed participating member of the regional climate action group of states called NEG-ECP and a confirmed participating member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Given all this, I will only decide tomorrow how NH should be categorized. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Climate Alliance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Lots of good work has been done on a fairly new topic. As noted below there is more work to be done to get this up to GA. I am new to GA reviewing myself but am happy to work through what we can together. Bear with me if some of the ratings change as I enlist help of other experienced reviewers to check my work.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Lots of good references and statistics in this article. I noted one place in which a statistic seems unsupported by the evidence.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This seems like the biggest need of this topic. What work has this group done? It's mentioned in the lead that it forms a forum (which is a phrase I find awkward but doesn't necessarily cause a fail for clarity) but there doesn't seem to be any support for that or what work it entails in the article itself. There is no mention of any reaction/criticism of this group's efforts which a quick Google Search reveals at least some existance of. I would encourage you to take a look at GA/FA of some of the identified projects to get a sense of what other topic headings might be appropriate.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The work needed referenced in criteria 3 would help me to fully evaluate this but what is written does appear neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Several major issues, no active editing to address.

Too soon?

This article right now is rated "start class", and while it isn't unusual to skip classes to WP:GA I noticed right away multiple issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually suspect the samething but actually figured that could be useful for my first review for WP:GA. Barkeep49 (talk)

The condition of the article is more important than the class rankings, which aren't always accurate unless they're B or higher. This article was promoted from Stub to Start on June 3, 2017, two days after its creation. It's been edited over 500 times since then and is now about 4,000 bytes larger and it was at promotion. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well just my two cents, but you should consider copyediting the four paragraphs which all begin with "On X date...", On X date...", On X date...", On X date...". The whole flow of these mini paragraphs doesn't go well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Argento Surfer

I was asked by Barkeep49 to look over the review and offer some feedback since this is his first review.

• I use criteria 1A to highlight any part of the text that I think could be improved. Sometimes this is minor, like the addition or removal of a comma. Other times, it's more significant improvement, like rearranging a paragraph for better flow or narrative. This is typically the most extensive portion of my reviews. I haven't read this particular article in its entirety, but one thing that I would suggest if I were doing the full review would be in the fourth paragraph of the History section. Instead of "By the evening of June 1 the state governors of seven other U.S. states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia) announced ", I would recommend "By the evening of June 1, the state governors of Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia announced". This removes the need for the parenthetical. These kinds of suggestions are always open to alternatives or rebuttal, of course.

Some reviewers will make these corrections themselves, but I prefer to let the nominator do it unless it's truly something minor.

• On 2B, you'll want to specify which statistic you're talking about so the nominator can correct it.
• On 3A, your comments are spot on. Considering how much is missing from this article, you might consider a quick fail on it. Significant effort will be required to add whole sections on function, accomplishments, praise, and criticism. It's not the GA reviewer's job to guide the creation of major content.
• On 6B, you could pass this without issue since the lone image does not need a caption. I think the addition of descriptive WP:ALTTEXT would be helpful, but in my experience most reviewers don't require this for GA.
• On 7, unless you intended to quick fail it, you should have used "hold" instead of the "n" value. This creates a purple clock icon and lets the nominator (and maintenance bots) know the review is still ongoing. I've updated it for you to avoid an automatic fail notice being generated on the nominator's talk page.

Those are the only comments I have for now. Nice work for your first outing as a reviewer. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer:Thanks so much for those thoughts. Really helpful. Is it typical for people to go deep on 1A? From reading guidance articles I wanted to be careful not to impose what I think is good writing on these users. Barkeep49 (talk)

It depends on the article. I try to focus on clarity/punctuation/typos/run on sentence-type issues, so the number of things I find per review vary pretty widely. I also word my comments so the nominator knows any points I raise are up for discussion, especially if I'm unfamiliar with the subject. I can only think of one time out of 47 that a nominator expressed initial unhappiness with the volume of requests I made, but in the same comment he said most of them improved the article and thanked me for my thoroughness.

When I'm the nominator, pretty much all the requests made by reviewers help me become a better contributor. For example, I'd never heard of the ALTTEXT I mentioned above until a reviewer told me I needed it. I've also been directed to essays on writing good plot summaries and review sections that have improved my writing.

Interaction with your nominator will be the best guidance, though. If you get too rigorous, they'll probably let you know. I've seen some reviews where the nominator requests the GA be failed so they can re-nominate and get a different reviewer, but that's usually because of a dispute on a more serious issue like the reliability of a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Climate-alliance.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Montana

We should highlight Montana in the map.--
-Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reentry to the Paris Agreement

How has this organization been impacted by the US rejoining the Agreement under Joe Biden? Glades12 (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevada Departure July 2023

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/lombardo-withdraws-state-from-us-climate-alliance-2871583/ Nvblue (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)