Talk:Sustainability/Archive 24

FA project
In November 2008, we launched a project to bring this article to FA status. Here is the draft charter, process and sign-up sheet. New members are welcome. Just add your name at the bottom and let us know what you would like to do.

Goal

 * To improve the Sustainability article to meet the featured article standard as assessed by  Wikiproject Environment.

Process

 * This will be a collaborative editing project. Decisions on article content will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." When a vote is required, a two-thirds supermajority will be considered consensus.
 * Participants working on the project will strive to be civil, assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

Sign-up
If you support this project and subscribe to the goals and process described above, please sign below indicating your skills, preferred role, and availability. Skills needed include: research, writing, editing, copyediting, graphics, FA criteria assessment, etc.
 * Sunray (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - mediation, editing, article standards, verification of online sources; moderately available now (> 1 hr/da). Sunray's edits are in blue
 * Granitethighs (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - research, writing, editing (1/2 to 1 hr/day). Granitethigh's edits are in green
 * OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - copyedit, checking for weasel words (various availability)
 * Travelplanner (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) - research (especially citations), editing (various availability). Travelplanner's edits are in purple
 * Nick carson (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC) - writing, editing, copyediting (1 hr/day) Nick's edits are in orange

Peer Review
I missed the following comments which have been available for a few days and have put them here so that all is clear - please put them back if this is not procedure. A few brief comments:

Granitethighs (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * R says there is a way to go on WP:MOS which is his area of expertise. I assume if we address each of his points one by one then that should improve matters. He does not suggest going for GA but that is still an option.
 * He thinks the UN references look reliable - but not sure if this is a comment on npov too.
 * Perhaps we need additional comment on the subject area, npov and other aspects of the article as well as WP:MOS etc.

Sustainability

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because we are preparing to list it as a featured article candidate. The regular editors of the article are too close to it and need a fresh pair of eyes to see what we do not see. We have likely nailed down many of the formatting issues, but are nevertheless looking for both "big picture" advice (especially concerning neutrality, readability, reliability of sources and such) as well as small details (links, etc.) that may trip us up. While the article has been stable recently, there have been repeated claims by one editor that the article is overly-reliant on UN sources. Our view is that much of the comparative data pertaining to sustainability comes from UN agencies or UN-sponsored studies, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. That said, we have tried to use a broad range of sources from a variety of perspectives and methodologies.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Sunray's talk page, I would make sure that all of the points from the previous peer review have been addressed. My comments are mostly WP:MOS pointsthat seem to need to be addressed - I am not an expert on the topic and the UN refs seem to be reliable to me.✅
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the best FA model I can find is Renewable energy in Scotland - while not a perfect match, it faces many of the same issues (trying to cover a broad topic which can be controversial) ✅
 * The lead image caption does not really tie the image explicitly to the article, perhaps something like Sustainability can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, as seen in NASA's Blue Marble composite images from 2001 (left) and 2002 (right). ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC - see WP:ALT✅ Granitethighs (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Captions that are not full sentences generally do not end with a period / full stop ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Image captions in general need to do a better job of explaining the image and its relation the text. For example, there are seven labels on File:Sustainable development.svg, but the caption just says "The three pillars of sustainability.[3]'' I think many people skimming an article still read the captions, so these need to do a better job of describing the image and its connection to the topic.I have had a go at this but see what you think. Granitethighs (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Per WP:MOS, most images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. This was done by someone outside the editing team. Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Does the lead follow WP:LEAD? The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure the current lead does this.It is the best we can do at present. Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Quotations need to follow MOS:QUOTE - unless a whole sentence is being quoted, punctuation goes outside the quotation marks, so fix things like Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[7] to ...a "journey" or "destination".[7] Fixed example; need to review article for additional offenders. Sunray (talk)
 * Per WP:ITALIC the use of italics to apparently imply quotation in "This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[11]" is incorrect - if it is a quote, use quotation marks. Corrected Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Linking statements such as "The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history." are not generally given in Wikipedia FAs. ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Avoid all capital letters in things like GLOBAL BIOPHYSICAL CYCLES CRITICAL FOR LIFE ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Spell out abbreviations on first use and give the abbreviation after in parentheses. So fix sentences like concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability:... Fixed example; are there more? ✅
 * This needs a ref: Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse.✅ --Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC) My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. (This eg. fixed, may be other examples --Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Refs need to be consistent and to present a minimum of information for each ref. Books generally need page numbers, but the Guns, Germs, and Steel ref and some other book refs do not. I have been through the references several times adding pages where these are needed and leaving those that seem OK as is. To my mind they are now OK but scrutiny by other eyes never goes astray.Granitethighs (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. Things like current ref 92 with a bare link "UNEP Grid Arendal. [1] A selection of global-scale reports. Retrieved on: 2009-3-12" need to be fixed. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * While a huge amount of work has bgone into this, it is not anywhere near ready for WP:FAC from a MOS point of view. Most articles have the hardest time meeting WP:WIAFA criteria 1a (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard). I think parts of this could be made more concise. The Definition section is one example. Making this more concise will not make it read better, it will also make it less huge and thus more inviting to the average reader.

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?] ✅To my mind the one gallery is justified and useful as it is - but people might think otherwise - please comment. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually). ✅ I think we can manage without but if someone has the skills to produce an infobox then it might provide consistency with similar topics. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?] Should be OK now. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?] I do not know the techniques for this - but it may be possible to reduce the headings without mangling the text. Could someone help or make suggestions please? Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * apparently I have removed this word although it was OK in its context but could edit out. Granitethighs (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), cosy (B) (American: cozy), curb (A) (British: kerb), program  (A) (British: programme), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur). OK, I think we decided to standardise oops -ize on Yankee. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Granitethighs (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] OK will check Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅