stringtranslate.com

Talk:Greenpeace Lyng GM maize action

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 09:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

Created by JamJamSvn (talk). Self-nominated at 14:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Greenpeace Lyng GM maize action; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

ALT0a: ... that 28 Greenpeace activists partially cut down a field of genetically modified maize in a 1999 direct action in Lyng, Norfolk, but were acquitted of all charges?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greenpeace Lyng GM maize action/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JamJamSvn (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there, I am happy to take this on for review as part of the GAN backlog drive. Environmental protests are a very interesting subject for me, so I'm excited to read about this case. Apologies it took so long for a review to materialise. Per my usual reviewing style, I will provide section-by-section comments followed by a check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Background

Lyng public meeting and preparations

Walnut Tree Farm direct action

Aftermath

Criminal charges and Regina v. Melchett trials
Reactions

Lead and infobox

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose is excellently written throughout, no major problems at all. I only found minor issues with chronology, but those are easily fixed.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead section needs to be longer, per the manual of style.
  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:
    All references are formatted impeccably.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    This is the main issue with the article right now. There's a lot of cases of citation bundling. Some cases are justified, but many just make it harder to verify the information and should be brought more inline with what they're being cited for.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Everything comes from one source or another, with no original interpretation, even if some sources aren't sufficiently inline for my liking.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig only flags direct quotes from the articles.[2] However, I did find a few cases, mostly in the background section, where things were too closely paraphrased for comfort. These bits should be rewritten in the author's own words.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Covers everything very thoroughly, with no obvious gaps.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Wonderfully focused, never once veering off track.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Stunningly neutral, with no clear bias shown towards one side of the other. Both sides of the conflict are given due weight and it's left entirely up to the reader to make up their mind about it.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Only reversion in its history was a cut-and-dry case of vandalism. No major changes have been made from day to day.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No images are currently featured in the article, so what Lyng or Melchett look like are left to the reader's imagination. I understand these photographs may not exist in the public domain, so this isn't a major issue. If relevant and properly-licensed images can be found, I would recommend they be included.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Were I reviewing on prose alone, this article would have passed immediately with flying colours. My main issues with it come down to inline citations and some cases of close paraphrasing, which are noted in detail above. I will put this review on hold for now, until these comments can be addressed. Feel free to ping me when you feel you've seen to everything and I'll be happy to give this another look over. Excellent work on this article so far, I very much enjoyed reading it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the high praise, and for the great help you've been here. I've done, I think, everything you've told me to do, and tried to make use of the copyvios report to get rid of as much paraphrasing as I can. In terms of the title, if you'd like to recommend anything better, I'm open to that. This title was the best I could come up with, but I worry that it's quite specific and indecipherable. Thanks for correcting me on how to use the inline citations too. That was very helpful, and I'll make sure to do that in future edits. Finally, images are very hard to come by for this, sadly, and I doubt that will change soon. Looking forward to your verdict! JamJamSvn (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for seeing to all this! Having looked over the changes you've made, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Fabulous work! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]