[go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Phoebe Plummer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]

Think editors need to be careful on neutrality here. Plummer is an activist convicted by English courts and is thus also a criminal. Venividiscripsi (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'criminal' is anything but neutral in this context, because it evokes associations with the organized, serious criminal circuit. It is unnecessary to call them 'a criminal' because - as you yourself say - that information is already in the word 'convicted'. Moreover, they are appealing, the case is not over yet. 2001:1C08:70C:3800:D480:F100:634C:B700 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your edit. Appeals not relevant (though could be added). Venividiscripsi (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Venividiscripsi: The word "criminal" is a value-laden label and its use needs to be supported by reliable sources that use the word to describe the subject. See MOS:LABEL and and the essay about Wikipedia:Crime labels. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but yes. Venividiscripsi (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

Created by Launchballer (talk) and Folkezoft (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 253 past nominations.

Launchballer 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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: Ooh, a quadruple hook. All of the articles are new enough, long enough, and well cited. There are a few places where phrasing could be a bit more neutral (I feel like inspired would be better than empowered, for example), but those may also be stylstic considerations. Earwig isn't happy, but it's the large block quote that speaks to Plummer's inspiration in that instance. Ideally Hehir's article would have a bit more on his early life, but if the sources aren't talking about it, rather difficult. (Minor quibble: the source says "unfortunately" rather than "unfortunate", but I think it works here).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting near the top of Approved for over a week. What else do I have to do to get this promoted? (For the record, I believe "unfortunately" --> "unfortunate" is covered by MOS:SIC.)--Launchballer 02:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure that Holland in particular meets the independent notability standards of WP:CRIMINAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a lot more borderline than Plummer, I'll admit that. From memory, there's significant coverage of her role in Politico at least and this Prospect piece was what clinched it for me, but I will of course take another look later.--Launchballer 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are dealing with a BLP, I think we should veer on the side of safety as described in WP:CRIMINAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look and I believe Holland meets WP:CRIMINAL#unusual crime.--Launchballer 00:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for another promoter's opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


POV

[edit]

@Folkezoft: You added a {{POV}} tag to this article. I believe this to be a fair reflection of the sources, but perhaps you've seen something I haven't? This is at DYK anyway so doubtless the reviewer will pick up on it.--Launchballer 09:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessment

[edit]

@Launchballer: I noticed you removed the class assessment while posting your previous comment. I see no reason to change my previous assessment of this article as being Start class at the moment, if that is what you intended to happen. If there was another reason for your edit, then please explain the need to remove the assessment rating. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see it assessed as that as similarly-sized articles of mine tend to be assessed as Cs and Bs. What is this missing?--Launchballer 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article primarily deals with the subject's criminal convictions for their activist behaviour. While the article covers their education, it doesn't explain what a "Mander Portman Woodward" is and suggests they have only attended school for 3 years. The article also doesn't really explain how they became involved in the "Just Stop Oil" protests nor how their activism evolved over time. The article goes from them reading a paper about climate change to being arrested for protesting as if it was some sort of religious conversion or miracle, without providing any analysis of how they joined any activist organisations. While the change in mindset might have been quick, I don't think it was as sudden as the article portrays. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per The Telegraph, Mander Portman Woodward is a college in Kensington. I've added this to the article. I haven't found exactly when they started doing what or how exactly Plummer became involved with Just Stop Oil (although Politico implies that they found the organisation via its activism); might have a rifle through some podcasts.--Launchballer 18:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]