Talk:Greenpeace Lyng GM maize action/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

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

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)

Comments

 * I'm assuming this action doesn't actually have a definitive name, so "Greenpeace Lyng GM maize action" is just the most descriptive option for the title?

Background

 * Instead of a paywalled ProQuest link to the article by The Observer, for easier verification, consider using the version on the website of The Guardian. See here.
 * The way that citations [2][3][4][5] are bundled together at the end of two very long sentences makes it difficult to verify. For example: The Guardian verifies that the Brigham family owned the farm for 300 years, but none of the other sources appear to mention this. The Observer verifies the (closely paraphrased) information that "William had accepted a trial of GM maize by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) on behalf of the UK Government, the biotechnology industry, English Nature, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) [...]" but it doesn't verify the length of the experiment being four years, none of the sources appear to. The Observer just says it was a "long-term experiment". Etc. Please move the citations inline with the information that they're verifying.
 * Spotcheck: [6] Verified, but this is very closely paraphrased.
 * I'm noticing a lot of very close paraphrasing in this section. Please give it a rewrite. It needs to be in your own words, not just a slight rewording of the sources.
 * Spotcheck: [2][5] Again, these are bundled where they should be inline with the information they're citing. [2] The Guardian verifies that it's resistant to the AgrEvo Liberty herbicide (that's herbicide, not pesticide, fix this). [5] The Telegraph verifies that it's resistant to insect damage.
 * Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8] Verified. Quite close paraphrasing for "expected to flower in August before being harvested in October." although in this case, I'm not sure how much this could be rewritten.
 * Spotcheck: [4] Verified, although the source appears to say that the ITE recommendation was 200 metres, not 100 metres. Perhaps you meant to say it was 100 metres more than the ITE recommendation?
 * "The action was one of the 30 GM crop destructions that had also occurred in the UK in the past 15 months [...]" Ok this sentence is an odd one. In the chronology of the article, the action hasn't happened yet, so it reads rather odd to bring it up here in the background section. "past 15 months" doesn't read right either. Consider starting the sentence with "30 GM crop destructions had occurred in the UK over the previous 15 months". This preserves the chronology better.
 * Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
 * Side comment: "activists engaged in a game of cricket and used the potatoes as cricket balls" Lmao.
 * Spotcheck: [10] Verified. Consider linking to the Google Books entry for easier verification.
 * Spotcheck: [4] Verified.

Lyng public meeting and preparations

 * Spotcheck: [11][8] Verified The Guardian, although it appears that The Independent is talking about a different meeting (it also doesn't reference most of the rest of the sentence).
 * "after the incident" "The incident" hasn't happened yet, so this also reads oddly in the chronology. Consider cutting this, so it just says "Lyng villagers would later state that the brothers [...]"
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [1][11][4] Partially verified. It appears that BBC News doesn't mention him attending the meeting, and is cited here for the description of Melchett as a labour minister, farmer and executive director of Greenpeace.
 * Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
 * "begin planning for the protest" Chronology again. Think "began planning to hold a protest" would work better.
 * Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [4] "[...] international branch [...]" Failed verification. It says that it was Greenpeace's "bureaucracy" that initially opposed the action, it doesn't mention its "international branch".
 * "opposed to the action" Chronology again. As the action hasn't happened yet, "planned action" would be better.
 * Spotcheck: [4] "[...] Switzerland [...]" Verified.
 * "After the protest, Melchett would state that" Chronology again. Think "Melchett would later state that" would work better.
 * Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
 * "taking part" Chronology again. As the action hasn't happened yet, "that agreed to take part" might be better?
 * Spotcheck: [12][9] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
 * Are we sure that the vicar and baptist minister are different people?
 * Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.

Walnut Tree Farm direct action

 * Do any of the sources refer to this as a "direct action"?
 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5][2][11] Another case of bundled citations, where each only verifies parts of the information. The Telegraph doesn't appear to verify anything in this sentence. Move The Guardian sources inline with the information they verify and cut The Telegraph citation if it isn't verifying anything.
 * Spotcheck: [5][11][1] Again, bundled citations, where each only verifies parts of the information. Try moving them inline with the info they each verify.
 * Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8][5] Verified, but again with the bundled citations. The quote from Brigham calling an activist a "criminal" is only in The Guardian.
 * "remove the entire crop" The second "e" in "remove" should be in square brackets, as you're slightly altering his exact quote.
 * Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Side comment: "Melshit. Melshit," Gottem lmao.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [9] Partial verification. This verifies that 28 people were arrested, but there's no citation inline with the quote from Brigham about "democracy or anarchy". I see that this is actually quoted in [5], so you should have that cited inline with the quote.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.

Aftermath

 * Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [14][9] Verified.

Criminal charges and Regina v. Melchett trials

 * Spotcheck: [9][14][3] Partial verification. It doesn't appear that citation [14] verifies most of this, where the other two verify the whole thing. This citation should be cut.
 * Spotcheck: [3][9][16] Iffy verifying these, as they appear to offer contradictory information about the bail proceedings. Please double-check these sources and move them inline with what you're citing them for.
 * Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8][12] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8][17] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [12][18] Verified, but again there are issues with bundling these citations, where they could be cited inline with the specific information they're verifying.
 * Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [12][1][19] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [11][6] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [11] "delighted by the verdict" The specific quote from Greenpeace in the source says they were "delighted the jury agreed with us" Either "by the verdict" needs to be outside of the quotation marks or the quote needs to be corrected.
 * Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [6] Verified.

Reactions

 * Quote from Corbyn should be integrated into another paragraph, rather than having it be a single-sentence paragraph of its own.
 * Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [4] Partially verified. This source does say that the Soil Association and Friends of the Earth privately disagreed with the action, but the reasoning it gives is completely different. The quote of "creeping commercialisation" doesn't appear to be anywhere in the cited source.
 * Spotcheck: [21] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [9][12][7] Verified.
 * Spotcheck: [2][21][23][24][25] Verified.

Lead and infobox

 * Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
 * The lead section should really be longer. Per the manual of style on lead section length, it should ideally be about two paragraphs long. There is certainly a lot of extra information from the article that could be added in here.
 * DMY date formatting is used throughout the article, but the infobox uses MDY. This can be fixed by adding a "df=y" field into the start date template.

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:
 * 1) 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):
 * 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. 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)