Talk:Ecocide/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. 48 JCL 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: John Cummings (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 48 JCL 23:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reviewing this. I am seeing some immediate concerns just looking at the lead.[reply]

Feedback: Address the current maintenance tags and also make the lead summary style. Try not to use excerpts. Paragraphs are pretty short, permanent dead links, blogs as sources?? What??? Anyways gonna QF this. 48 JCL 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi 48JCL thanks very much for the review, I really appreciate it, could I ask a few things to help me imporve the article?

I don't see any maintainance tags on the article and can't find any in the version history in the past weeks, can you tell me which ones you are refering to?
I've just been through the refs but I don't see any that I'd recognise as a blog, can you tell me which ones you mean?
I'm assuming you have a tool for checking dead links you used? Can you tell me which ones are dead and I'll go and fix them
Can you tell me what QF means?
If you have any other suggestions for me to get it up to standard I'd really appreciate it, I can work on the article, would it be ok to come back to you once I've done that to ask you to reassess it?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Should’ve phrased that better, there were a lot of blank-needed tags.

Blogs: [23] [62]. [155] is dead, [175] is SPS. QF means quickfail, [44] is permanently dead, and ecocide is a pretty big topic, so I am unsure why old sources have to be used. Also, for the examples some stuff is too long or too short. I’m also sure that the In Popular Culture section needs no sources, because pretty sure on most FA films like Saving Private Ryan, citations are not needed for the plot of the story. Cheers, 48 JCL 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with you on whether "In popular culture" sections should be sourced. My experience is that they are a magnet for people to put in examples that are tenuously connected to the topic, or only connected in one viewer's opinion. So it's reasonable to require that films have been mentioned in a source as depicting ecocide, to make sure we don't end up including all war films. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, still learning here. Appreciate your feedback. 48 JCL 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23 is an opinion piece by "James McBride, Ph.D., J.D., Clinical Professor of Liberal Studies and Chair of Law, Ethics, History, and Religion in Global Liberal Studies at New York University" in a journal with an editorial process, published by Wiley. I wouldn't call this a "blog". As an opinion piece by a recognised expert, its conclusions shouldn't be presented in wikivoice, but the factual background that it sets out can be used to source facts in the Wikipedia article. Ref 62 is also an opinion piece on a site that publishes research reports. Again I would say that these are reliable if used for factual background. These are sources that have to be used carefully, but it's not outrageous to use them, and the case hasn't been made that they are used inappropriately. Apologies if I've misunderstood the numbering. As I've said myself, there are some problems with sourcing of this article, but in my opinion they are limited and fixable. Two dead links out of nearly 200 doesn't seem a deep problem. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL Oops, the above appears as a reply to myself instead of to you. I'm wondering if I've misunderstood something, but also if you might accept that a quickfail was hasty. I've fixed the two broken links: just Googled the titles and they were on the correct domain but with different URLs. Attn @John Cummings. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, this was an edit conflict so I'm probably duplicating 48JCL's points, but having glanced at the article:

I see minor maintenance tags on two paragraphs "In May 2017 the grassroots citizen's movement..." and "In order to enforce implementation and increase citizens' trust in EU rules,..." It seems these can be addressed easily and it would not be normal to quick-fail a review just because of those problems.
Examples of dubious sources, in the current version, refs 103, 112, but also there are a lot of activist sites used as sources: not that they should be totally excluded, but the article shouldn't rely on them greatly for factual content. Usually the actions of activists should only be mentioned if they are covered in third-party sources. In general, the citations need to make clear who is publishing the source: is it an official body, a recognised publication, a campaigning group, or just someone with a Wordpress installation? For example, ref 132 is credited to OHCHR. It could be made clear to the reader that this is the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. That helps the reader to recognise that it should be taken seriously. Where there's a named author like with ref 58 that should be clear too.
refs 155 and 44 are marked as permanent dead links.

Please don't be discouraged! MartinPoulter (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MartinPoulter and 48JCL thanks so much for the help and detailed explanation, I really appreciate it :) John Cummings (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]