Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Armstrong (political theorist)
- 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 Lightburst talk 01:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chris Armstrong (political theorist)
- ... that the British political theorist Chris Armstrong calls for a "blue new deal" to secure ecological resilience for the ocean and a just blue economy? Source: From this review of Armstrong's Blue New Deal: "He argues it is time to rethink our relationship with the ocean to foster a resilient environment and a just economy at sea."
- Reviewed: TBD
- Comment: I think the phrase "blue new deal" is a great one; I hope you agree!
Moved to mainspace by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chris Armstrong (political theorist); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- You have over 100 DYK credits and thus need to provide a QPQ before this can go anywhere. Schwede66 16:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I know; I'll get to it. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Fanny Steers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I know; I'll get to it. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: He is the author of several books, including 2017's Justice and Natural Resources and 2022's A Blue New Deal
Is this a common format or style in the UK? I much prefer the readability of He is the author of several books, including Justice and Natural Resources (2017) and A Blue New Deal (2022)
For some reason, dates with apostrophes look exceptionally strange on my screen. Not sure why. I tried to review this nom and got stuck at the dates. Heh. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Ok; I've phrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just briefly read through the article and didn’t notice any problems, but I haven’t spot checked the sources just yet. I did notice that the bit about "Armstrong's central practical proposal is the need for a 'World Ocean Authority' to oversee the high seas" is very timely, and it’s a point I’ve heard come up again and again in any discussion about ocean resources. In fact, it’s very possible that I heard Armstrong himself discuss it a few months ago, I can’t recall, but I wonder if you might consider submitting an ALT1 along those lines. Also, would you consider submitting more than one QPQ to help with the backlog? I just submitted four for my last submission. I realize that’s asking a lot, but even two would help. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been two weeks without any action here. Josh Milburn, are you planning on proposing a new hook as suggested? Also, Viriditas, are you waiting for the new hook, or will you be finishing the review as the nomination stands now and offering a status icon? Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just briefly read through the article and didn’t notice any problems, but I haven’t spot checked the sources just yet. I did notice that the bit about "Armstrong's central practical proposal is the need for a 'World Ocean Authority' to oversee the high seas" is very timely, and it’s a point I’ve heard come up again and again in any discussion about ocean resources. In fact, it’s very possible that I heard Armstrong himself discuss it a few months ago, I can’t recall, but I wonder if you might consider submitting an ALT1 along those lines. Also, would you consider submitting more than one QPQ to help with the backlog? I just submitted four for my last submission. I realize that’s asking a lot, but even two would help. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the British political theorist Chris Armstrong calls for a "blue new deal" to secure ecological resilience for the ocean and a just blue economy?
- @Theleekycauldron: per our recent discussion, can I still review this nomination even though I have added ALT1 to remove "the" and delink several words (compare with ALT0)? Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: i think that'd be fine, yep! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: per our recent discussion, can I still review this nomination even though I have added ALT1 to remove "the" and delink several words (compare with ALT0)? Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Bio is slim on details. Educational attainments are sourced to his CV, which is somewhat unusual, but not unheard of or entirely prohibited. It does indicate underlying sourcing issues, such as lack of secondary source coverage. Armstrong meets and exceeds the notability barrier given his books, reviews, and awards. The nominator also did a good job summarizing his work in this short article. Reliable secondary sources support the hook, but this is only transparent on the review page, not in the article, which uses grouped, bundled, bulleted sources, a format which myself I enjoy, but use very carefully, often in terms of highlighting PST citations, otherwise it can appear confusing or obfuscating to others (as it does here). One possible and quick solution, is to use the "quote" parameter in the template, so that anyone checking the article can easily verify the material. With all those concerns, I still think the article passes DYK, but I realize there may be others who disagree with the use of a CV as a source in first paragraph without secondary sources supporting it. My personal take is that the information is non-controversial and easy to verify and should be allowed in this particular instance, but not encouraged. With that said, per my additional comments above, I have altered ALT0 by removing "the", delinking "political theorist" as unnecessary (WP:SEAOFBLUE), while linking "ecological resilience", removing the link to "just", and keeping the link to the "blue economy" in ALT1. While it is true that this hook follows the original source material (cited above) very closely, I think it uses just enough common words and phrases for it to be used in its present form. I think the nominator follows the original source too closely, and should try to avoid that going forward, but I also think this amounts to an acceptable paraphrase, but just barely. With all that said, I prefer ALT1, my recommended formulation, which the doyenne of DYK has assured me is defensible. If this is not the case, please let me know. I should note, that I previously asked the nominator for additional hooks, partly in the event that issues are found with ALT0. None were forthcoming, so I will let the chips fall where they may. Additional eyes confirming this nomination would be appreciated given the above. If you're still reading this at this point, then I apologize for keeping you here. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this detailed review, and sorry I've been quiet. I am happy with ALT1 other than the use of a false title, which I have corrected. I like your idea of using the quote parameter; I will do this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)