Talk:Global Environment Outlook

Peacock, advert or weasel?

Most of this article reads like it might have been copy-pasted from the GEO website (though I haven't found these exact words there.) It focuses on what the UNEP apparently does to write these reports, in extremely vague, but generally euphonious terms which don't really give any clear, encyclopedic, factual information about these reports, what they say, of what real effect on the world they are, etc. I have a hard time deciding whether the Peacock, Advert, or Weasel template is actually the appropriate one to convey this. Also, the only sources listed are from the UN itself, so the article can't really be considered objective. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, I find this critical evaluation subjective, hypercritical, primed to take offence. Admittedly the article is imperfect and incomplete, it may be written by someone involved and approving of the activity or organization, but that is not biased or untrue per se and the language displays much less approving and praising tone than the critic JustinTimes' language displays prejudice, antipathy and preordained will to deprecate it. It at least provides the information I sought when looking up the report. I'm going to remove this rewrite notice. A critic might want to identify point for point where s/he wants examples given as another has in the article asking which governments wanted an annual report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmo (talk • contribs) 09:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)