Talk:Greenpeace/Signed Articles/Eduzendium

From Citizendium
< Talk:Greenpeace
Revision as of 18:56, 4 March 2021 by imported>John Stephenson (rm. {{subpages}})
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

First (instructor) evaluation comments

Hi Lateria,

Here are some suggestions for further improvements to your encyclopedia entry draft. I'm going to stick to the sections you've already been developing, but keep in mind that you still need to fill in the others as well as the required subpages.

  • Above all, it's important that you present information about Greenpeace in your own words rather than lift directly (or even paraphrase closely) from the organization's website. This is both to avoid plagiarism and to ensure that you're providing a neutral explanation of what your topic is all about.
  • In the "History" section, you might consolidate a lot of what you have already into the "Founding" section and then create additional subsections chronicling the organization's development since the 1970s. As you do that, try to put yourself in your readers' shoes to ensure that you connect all the dots when you explain historical developments. For example, the first sentence ("Their mission was to 'bear witness' ...) assumes that your readers know who "their" is referring to.
  • The "Current objectives and activities" section sounds a bit too much like organizational rhetoric rather than a researcher's careful explanation of what Greenpeace is trying to accomplish and how it's going about it.
  • The "Achievements" section needs to be completely reworked in your own words.

Shamira Gelbman 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Second (peer) evaluation comments

Well first off there isn't anything about the organizational structure. Then under your current objectives and activities there really isn't much there. I would say the biggest thing that Greenpeace would be involved in is the Cap and Trade bill in Congress. It has been one of the most controversial bills this year and something I would believe you should address. They have been working on saving the Boreal forest. It has been one of the biggest projects they have worked on as well. I also find the achievements section a little confusing. I think there should be some way to fix this. Also your history section is very short. I find it hard to believe that is all they have done. There has been so much with oil spills, forest fires, and destroying rain forest, as well as global warming. There is so much I believe is out there that I think you could write and research about.

Moved material from definition page

Greenpeace exists because this fragile earth deserves a voice. It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action!

According to, the international Greenpeace site, Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by:

Catalyzing an energy revolution

Defending out oceans

Protecting the world's ancient forests

Working for disarmament and peace

Creating toxic free future

Campaigning for sustainable agriculture

These are just a few of the many ways to help promote peace, and what Greenpeace organization offers, to strive for a better tomorrow, for our world. Greenpeace is a passionate organizations that tries to provide resource and links to healthier ways of living. Ones to benefit not only the human society but the whole earth and everything within it.

Retrieved from ""

This article is highly biased and non-neutral

I also believe that Earth's environment is being abused ... but this article is terribly biased and non-neutral despite having had sections commented out. Also, there were many, many, many spelling and grammar errors ... and there are probably still more.

In particular, the section entitled "Achievements" contains a number of highly, highly biased praises of events reported (supposedly) in some completely unreferenced news items.

Surely, Greenpeace deserves a better article than this one. It is riddled with spelling errors, bad grammar and biased statements. It needs a thorough review and rewrite. Milton Beychok 21:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)