This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Article is too reliant on McKinsey and certain primary sources
Hi User:Noble Attempt, thanks for starting this article! It is great to see an passionate editor who is comfortable with the main principles and features of Wikipedia helping out the Climate Change WikiProject - we really don't get enough participants considering the mammoth scope of our task.
At the same time, I would say that this article appears too focused on a single McKinsey report. Remember, a for-profit consulting agency is not exactly an optimal source for a Wikipedia article. Peer-reviewed papers are a better reference; peer-reviewed review articles and meta-analyses are better still, especially if published in a high-grade journal. For most climate change articles, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report is currently the closest to a gold-standard reference there is. I know it is a very large and daunting reading, but using the Ctrl-F search for "breadbasket failure" would help speed up this task considerably. It would also help to reveal which primary references you have used are more important than others - and which ones might be contradicted by the research you have not encountered.
I'll try to find the time to contribute to this article in the near future, but in the meantime, I wanted to explain why I think this article currently deserves the NPOV tag, and what would be needed to remove it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]