Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA2

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to review this article, but before I do so I want to ask a question regarding the stability. There has been a lot of recent activity here and to be quite honest the talk page is a mess to work through. Do the major editors here agree that the current version is currently stable? AIR corn (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a sentence in the lead paragraph - on a matter that has been disputed before but not (IMO) resolved - but I think it can be easily fixed. Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement has the details. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your willingness to review this Aircorn, I really appreciate it. I made the change to the lead that Mitch Ames suggested, and I have no more changes I'm planning on making, so I think that it is stable now. Per this chart Mitch and I have been the two most active editors over the past 5 months or so. The third most active editor made a lot of comments on the talk page, but has since retired. The Readers' Digest version is in this thread. So I think we're ready for a review then. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as long as Mitch doesn't mind, I would appreciate a thorough review, GA+, if you will. I'm captivated by the idea of making this Today's Featured Article eventually (when's earth day?) so I'd like to get started down that (long and arduous) path. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty thorough as far as GA reviewers go. I treat these as collaborative efforts so feel free to ask any questions regarding any comments I make. Will have something for you to comment on soon. AIR corn (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
Sorry for the delay. A few things from my first read through. All in all it reads pretty close to GA quality so I am not expecting too much extra work to be done in that regard. However a request has been made for more detail so I will make suggestions outside the GA criteria. Like all my reviews this is a colaborative process, so feel free to question anythingg mentioned here. AIR corn (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * VHEMT and Knight appears to be used almost interchangable. I don't think having it like this is necesarily a problem, or know of any solution, it was just quite noticable. Especially when sentences within a paragraph switch between the two so frequently (e.g. when it goes from Knight says to VHEM says, to he says at the start of idealogy). Not important for GA, but maybe someone will be perdantic about it if you take it further.
 * Hmm, this is somewhat tricky, I tried to standardize it within paragraphs a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That section also tends to start with a lot of "he says ..." sentences. Again not a major for GA, but maybe it could be mixed up a bit to make it read better. It can be tricky whe everything has to be attributed.
 * I took a stab at it, not sure if my changes were an improvement though... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe say journalist Oliver Burkeman from The Guardian. It won't hurt to make it obvious who it is and of The Guardian doesn't sound right.
 * Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Carmen Dell'Aversano notes that VHEMT seeks to renounce children as a symbol,[23] and casts the movement as a form of "queer oppositional politics".[24] She argues that the movement seeks to come to a new definition of "civil order". This might need some more explanation. What does she mean by renounce children as a symbol, "queer oppositional politics" or definition of civil order. These sound interesting, but I have no idea what they mean. Could they be expanded on ina sentenc or two, or written more clearer.
 * Hmm, I honestly found her arguments a bit difficult to parse, not being an expert in postmodern queer theory myself. I took a stab at clarifying, hope it helps. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The paper argues that voluntary extinction is a laudable goal, believing that extinction is unavoidable and preferring voluntary extinction as the most peaceful and noble option Unclear sentence. Don't like the use of believing (do papers believe). Might need rewording, moving or elimanitng preferring could help.
 * Changed the wording a bit, hope that helped. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian Bethune writes in Maclean's that Knight's logic is "as absurd as it's unassailable". However, he doubts Knight's claim  This however doesn't make sence as the two sentences are both critical.
 * Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any more groups outside VHEMT that support this position?
 * I don't think so, off the top of my head. There are a few others that support massive population reductions, but I think VHEMT is the only one that comes out for total human extinction. I thought that the Church of Euthanasia also promoted extinction, but now that I look, I can't see any place they are described as advocating total extinction, just mass suicide and cannibalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, got a bit distracted, but will get back to this soon. AIR corn (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. I've been keeping pretty busy myself. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Round two

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Sorry for the delay. A few minor points after checking the references.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * excellent
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * who was raised in a large family. Couldn't find this in the cited source.
 * It's on page 2 of the SFGate piece: "Thompson and Knight say they were raised in large, happy families." Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know how missed that. AIR corn (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * He later concluded that the extinction of humanity would be a final solution to the Earth's environmental problems. I am assuming comes from “That’s when I realised that the best thing for the planet would be for us to phase ourselves out completely.” "Final solution" is a bit stronger than "best solution".
 * I suppose it is, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Previous issues sorted
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One non-free image with rational
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Some minor issues to address
 * Some minor issues to address

Quite a bit of work has gone into this recently, but it looks good and isn't really unstable. Not sure about dividing up the the reception into criticism and positive responses, but that is more my personal preference than any requirement that I am aware of. So passing this now. AIR corn (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)