Wikipedia:Peer review/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/archive1

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
This peer review discussion has been closed. The article has just been passed as a GA after a fairly long process, and I'd like to try to get it to FA quality. I'd love if someone who has experience with the FA criteria could take a good look at it and point out issues that would gain Opposes at WP:FAC. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about possible neutrality/spin issues, so attention to that would be appreciated, as well.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohmigod total April Fools material! Have you considered doing work on Flat Earth Society as well? ;) Res Mar 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why he says "that is what they are"; isn't he part of the organization?
 * Rephrased, the quote was actually the writer for The Economist speaking about the organisation. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mitch Ames reverted the change, I'll take it up on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "facing humanity and the Earth's biosphere" Isn't it more the Earth's biosphere then humanity?
 * Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "was founded..." Founded when? What year?
 * The newsletter was first published in 1991, he had the idea for a while before then: "In his imagination, if nowhere else, Mr Knight became the founder of the Human Extinction Movement;". I don't think there was any formal founding of the group before '91 though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "requested that individuals commit to stop procreating" Awkward structure.
 * Good point, I took a stab at smoothing it out. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "in 1996, VHEMT..." VHEMT or this one fool?
 * lol, be nice :) I checked the source again and rephrased it a bit for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "adopted a logo" When? If unknown you should say "around this time"
 * Hmm, good question. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "primary advocate of the movement's platforms" Whatawho?
 * Hmm, that is a bit rough. I was trying to paraphrase "principal spokesman" without saying "principal spokesman". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But what's wrong with spokesman? Res Mar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, nothing, I guess: changed. Should I say, "serves as spokesman for the movement" or "serves as the spokesman for the movement"? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "psychologist James Ormrod claims" claims implies that he's a member
 * I didn't see that, good catch. Took a stab at rephrasing for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "such as gardening" He's not being sarcastic?
 * I don't think so, I do wonder sometimes though, the quote from the article was "While he accepts the existence of sexual drive, he thinks the need for children is 'cultural conditioning', and that such desires could be channelled elsewhere: perhaps into gardening, adopting a stream, caring for old people, or by having a pet." Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll strike this. Res Mar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Short article but interesting. The tone in the last section is obviously strained; hard to talk about this without going into overt bashing. Res Mar 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "argues that talking about population control is seen as taboo" This seems more like a "fact" then an argument
 * Didn't think of that, rephrased.
 * "a one child per family limit as a preferable alternative to human extinction" Wouldn't the end result be the same?
 * Huh, I didn't think of that either. I'll check the source again, but I think my rephrasing here works. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, that one hadn't occurred to me. Earth day had come to mind, actually, not sure if they'd let us though. Thanks for peer reviewing. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for your help, I took a first run through the points, I'll revisit again later. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you think of the lead? It looks a little gaunt to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead is a bit short I suppose. The article is probably long enough to be two paragraphs. Res Mar 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, looks fine now. <b style="color:#333333;">Res</b> Mar 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)