Talk:Greta Thunberg

"RfC on lede image"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is per WP:SNOW Keep current)

---

Is the current image the ideal image for the lede of this article or are there preferable images that should be considered for the lede of this article? Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Current. Do not change. The reason I like this image is for exactly the same reason others are detracting it. She has a pleasant and beatific glow about her, and personally I feel this is an accurate reflection of public sentiment about her prophetic role in the climate change movement. I don't feel there is anything accidental about the choice of this particular image for the infobox. I also think that the European Union constellation behind her head is a good way to represent her sphere of origin and influence. She is primarily an EU wunderkind and the logo is quite appropriate. Keep current image until she has aged and changed her appearance. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose the image presently in the article. I feel that we want "working" images rather that "portrait" images. We should want to show her in her "working environment". Therefore I see 2 images already in the article that would preferably be placed in the lede—either this one or this one. I am limiting myself to images that are already in the article to make this simpler but certainly others are welcome to consider images that are not in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current I see nothing wrong with the current picture on the article. I see no reason to change it. Nihlus 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current This is a good image of her, is the consensus image at this time, and no specific alternative is being presented. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This can be a "specific alternative...presented". Not in her "working environment" but projecting a demeanor more typical of the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not how RFCs work. That is an OK image you linked to, but consensus favors the current image, and you have not presented a convincing reason to make a change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Current No reasons for change are given in this RfC. If the reasons for change involve making her look less saintly, as the silly complaints above seemed to be built around, I can do little more than laugh at such appallingly POV logic. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Montreal_14 crop

• I disagree that a portrait image is inappropriate for the lead, what matters is a good likeness and neutral air, neither demeaning nor hero-worhipping. The halo effect on the current one does look odd, like it's been photoshopped, I prefer the (Montréal)_14.jpg picture but it needs cropping to just her for the lead as she looks rather small in the picture. How about this cropped version I've done here? Samatarou (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Samatarou, no thanks: it's horrible, the contrast of shine and shadow on her face is jarring, her hair is a mess, her shirt is wrinkled, there is a microphone in the way. Yuck. Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If "her hair is a mess, her shirt is wrinkled, there is a microphone in the way", Elizium23, these are plusses. We are not afraid of reality. We are an encyclopedia. We aren't creating a coffee-table book of anodyne, fine-art photography. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Samatarou. I second your choice. The Montréal pic is excellent. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Absent a policy-based rationale for change, we should stick with the current image, which fully complies with MOS:IMAGE's selection criteria. Additonally, the poor lighting in the Montreal picture renders it inferior to the present picture. – Teratix ₵ 03:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Personally I think the strong sidelighting brings her face to life (reminiscent of the powerful portraits Lewis Hine did of child workers for instance), there is just the right amount of reflected light to lift the shadows and bring out the shape of her face. And who on earth irons their clothes these days? Ironing just adds to global warming! Samatarou (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it "brings her face to life". One of the problems with this image is the absence of involvement in something taking place, which fails to inject a quality that brings a photograph to life. In the The Montréal pic she appears to be reacting to something taking place, such as an audience reaction. By contrast she is merely smiling pleasantly but passively in the image in the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Current— There is no policy-based reason for change. Furthermore, in the above discussion, there was near-unanimous opposition to any change. This is an encyclopedia; we are not here to find images that capture the essence of a person. We just need the ones that best demonstrate what the subject looks like. The current image will do just fine. --WMSR (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current Image -- My reasoning is to add to the trending consensus that the current image is fine so that maybe, just maybe, this issue may finally be put to rest. If this issue is not put to rest, I fear that some debaters will suffer a nervous breakdown and then try to sue Wikipedia for not intervening. Fixation is a dangerous state of being. Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Replace that rather bland image which shows nothing of her intensity and courage. Let's have a shot of her angry face when speaking to world leaders! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see an image on Commons that fits your description, unfortunately. – Teratix ₵ 10:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Teratix—this shows her in disagreement. I agree with SergeWoodzing. I would say that in the current image a forceful speaker is reduced to a meek and compliant smile. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current - There has been no good rationale given for changing. Arguments that she should be shown "angry" or strident etc. are editorialising with the image, which should be avoided. Other images may well work as well, but in the absence of any reason that this image is clearly wrong, I oppose on the basis that the status quo is stable, whereas a change will lead to more discussions and frequent changes as there will always be some who are dissatisfied with any image. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current - No good reason to change. But am pondering the wording of the RfC. It seeks to endorse this image as the "ideal image for the lede of this article". I'm not sure any image would ever be seen as "ideal" by everyone; achieving consensus is probably the best we can manage. Is the RfC attempting to also choose a new "ideal image"? It's unclear. Also I'm surprised that User:TheMightyAllBlacks has not yet appeared, as it was they who kicked off the whole discussion in the thread above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Current is fine. It has become quite an iconic image, not just Wiki. If I were a photographer out to capture her essence I would be pretty proud of this one. It places her on the international stage rather a school graduate addressing school assembly. Not to say that a better one will not turn up. We have 'working' ones elsewhere in the article placed in relevant context. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Replace When people start describing an image as iconic as Ex_nihil did, you know all links to impartiality left the building a while ago. --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• If that's true, then @nihil followed @TheMightyAllBlacks' lead and that disqualifies @TheMightyAllBlacks from a preferred image selection and further debate too. Johnrichardhall (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• And therefore this remark in turn disqualifies yourself --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Johnrichardhall—this article (uppermost image) and this article (also uppermost image) show the direction that I think we should be moving. I understand the images I'm linking to probably aren't available. But we should try to use an image in which the expression on her face shows that she is engaged with an audience. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE: If anyone reads what I posted herein this thread and the many other threads concerning Thunberg's picture, you'd find I could not care less which photo is used, so long as it is not Photshoped or demeaning. I support keeping the current picture simply to join the trending consensus with the hope that this matter (endeavor in futility) might finally and at long last be put to rest. Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, it is counterproductive and disruptive to link to images that cannot possibly be used. Both are clearly marked Getty Images so "probably aren't available" is false because they are definitely not available. So please stop this disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Cullen328—I prefaced my point with "I understand the images I'm linking to probably aren't available". In perusing images of Greta Thunberg in the vastness of the internet those two images seemed to me to be excellent—not on vague criteria—but on defined criteria. We don't have to wallow around in never-never-land in this discussion, carping about this and carping about that. I am articulating my criteria and I welcome everyone to articulate their criteria even if they disagree with me. As I think I made clear it is my opinion that "we should try to use an image in which the expression on her face shows that she is engaged with an audience". Those are criteria that I am suggesting and I only linked to those two articles because in my opinion those linked-to images are excellent exemplifications of my verbally-articulated criteria. But we have images that are available that fit my criteria such as this one. Thunberg is clearly interacting with an audience. That is what she is known for—her speaking abilities. By the way, it is very easy to derail this discussion because it easily devolves into subjective opinions and grumbling and carping. My approach is to articulate criteria we should be looking for in an image for the lede, which I think everyone should do, even if they think the current image is best. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, you don't get to assign your own criteria based on your observations of her character. MOS:IMAGE assigns criteria for us, and the current image fulfills them. End of story. --WMSR (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WMSR—how have I made "observations of her character"? Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, read through your comments on this thread. --WMSR (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I dislike asking this question but it must be contemplated. Is @Bus stop's activity helping to create a better Thunberg article or is Bus stop's activity disruptive to creating a better Thunberg article? This may not be the right place for this question and I apologize if this question is not apropos herein this discussion, but the question begs an answer.Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would consider it badgering since the informal thread above didn't yield the answer Bus stop wanted. Just not sure it's worth taking to a noticeboard. --WMSR (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WMSR—it is not at all uncommon to depict the subject of an article speaking, often in front of microphones, and that is why I suggest this image of Thunberg. Most of the following articles depict the subject of the article addressing an audience, and in many instances they are speaking in front of a microphone: Malcolm X, Rakesh Shukla (animal welfare activist), Deepak Chopra, Gloria Steinem, Ruth Behar, Dorothy Allison, bell hooks, Alice Walker, J. J. Abrams, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Shai Agassi, David Agus, Chris Anderson (entrepreneur), Simon Anholt, Michael Anti (journalist), Paola Antonelli, Dan Ariely, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Julian Assange, Anthony Atala, Kevin Bales, Robert Ballard, Chris Bangle, Marian Bantjes, Richard Baraniuk, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Yves Béhar, Joe Belfiore, Seth Berkley, Jeff Bezos, Harsha Bhogle, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, David Brooks (commentator) Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, which comment are you replying to? Second, Not all of these people are known for their public speech, so I'm not seeing your point. Nor am I seeing anything wrong with the current image, which fulfills MOS:IMAGE perfectly well. You've encountered very few people who actually support a change. My best advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --WMSR (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says that a "biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone". It also says we should select "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Established practice in Wikipedia biographies of activists and politicians known as orators is to select a lead or infobox photo that is a neutral portrait photo instead of a candid action photo taken while the subject is speaking to a crowd. Take a look at Theodore Roosevelt, Leon Trotsky, Barbara Jordan, Joseph Goebbels, Eugene V. Debs, Mao Zedong, Charles Coughlin, Margaret Thatcher, Malcolm X, Huey Long, Benito Mussolini, Theodore G. Bilbo, Malala Yousafzai, Adolph Hitler, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Nellie McClung, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Winston Churchill, Idi Amin and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Look on Wikipedia where none of these articles features a candid lead image of the orator actually orating. All are portrait photos. If you look at other "high quality reference works", you will find the same thing. The current photo is consistent with the practice in other biographies of activists and orators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: it's Adolf. Not many of him with a halo. But yes... with the anger management issues, already! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC) '

"Established practice in Wikipedia biographies of activists and politicians known as orators is to select a lead or infobox photo that is a neutral portrait photo instead of a candid action photo taken while the subject is speaking to a crowd" Then why are you listing the Malcolm X article? I think he appears to be "speaking to a crowd". Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE I did not post the new photo: There is a new photo of Thunberg in the infobox and I have no issue with it. It is current and shows her speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2020. Johnrichardhall (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted it. The trending consensus here was to keep the image. Boldy changing the image on the page would have been fine if we were not in the middle of an RFC, but we are, so we need to arrive at consensus before allowing a change. For the record, it was a good image. If that had been the one we were arguing about I would have reverted to that too! -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with some of the sentiments expressed here that this is a good choice. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace (?) Though I am not at all against keeping the portrait of GT as it is, this new cropped photo looks good to me, too. Esowteric+Talk 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• The image discussion is tabled. -User:Bust stop, 2019 [1]

After discussion the freaking lead photo for almost three months now I !vote to just remove the picture all together and relentlessly and violently trout the next person that starts a discussion about it. GMG^talk 15:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto!  ;-) Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"The image discussion is tabled. -User:Bust stop, 2019". If you mean you are ending the RFC then you should add archive top and archive bottom templates to the RFC discussion and faithfully record the result (which was a consensus for the current image). If we do not agree about the consensus, we may need a neutral close, but that consensus looked fairly clear to me. You could also perhaps close with a summary such as "I have decided to withdraw my RFC as there was no consensus to change". See WP:CLOSE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, on the contrary, it should be recorded as "there was consensus not to change" which is different from "no consensus to ..." Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there is an emerging consensus to change. Several of us in the last few hours are expressing support for this image for the lede. And by the way it was not an image initially suggested by me—it was added here. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Most RfCs get to run longer than a day. Any close would best be done by a neutral editor who has expressed no opinion either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, has it only been a day? It feels like so much longer! -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding: Martinevans123, I was addressing if the proposer of the RfC wished to withdraw it. That can be done at any time, and the proposer might, in that case, put a summary that says "I have decided to withdraw this RfC as the consensus is clearly to not change." Yet it is clear that the proposer does not wish to do that, and the comment I was responding to where it looked like he was, had in fact come from a previous conversation so I had misunderstood his position. See point 1. of WP:RFCCLOSE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop said I think there is an emerging consensus to change. There is not. All of the editors opposed to the current image are opposed on a basis that has no base in WP policy. I think Johnrichardhall may be onto something; Bus stop's unwillingness to drop the stick demonstrates that this is a disruptive exercise. Whenever possible, we use portrait photos for BLPs, not candids. Full stop. There is no policy-based reason to change the image. Full stop. This discussion should be closed, and Bus stop should take a step back and consider whether this debate is a good use of their fellow editors' time. I, for one, am baffled that this has been allowed to continue for so long. --WMSR (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR—thanks for pinging me. You are mistaken when you insist that we generally use "portrait photos". In fact we often use photos of people in mid-sentence addressing audiences. This makes for an active as opposed to a passive image, and I think it can be advantageous in enlivening an article, not to mention that it is informative—it shows what the person looks like. There is no shortage of examples of lede images in biographies of the subject speaking at a microphone to a large audience (or without a microphone): Benjamin Zander, Maysoon Zayid, Philip Zimbardo, Jonathan Zittrain, Marlene Zuk, Tom Wujec, Sheryl WuDunn, Will Wright (game designer), Conrad Wolfram, Taylor Wilson, Edith Widder, Lucianne Walkowicz, Neil Turok, Krista Tippett, Robert Thurman, Sebastian Thrun, Shashi Tharoor, Julie Taymor, Jill Tarter, Nina Tandon, Chade-Meng Tan, Daniel Tammet, Itay Talgam. The advantage of such lede images are that they are active as opposed to the passive quality of the current image. Of the 4 images displayed below I favor "Image 1" or "Image 4". And I think it would be great to keep "Image 2" but lower in the article. It is a very good image but in my opinion not ideal for the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Greta Thunberg, not microphones. Certainly, speaking photos are used when portraits are unavailable, but that does not make them preferred. Cullen328 laid out the relevant policy from WP:MOS already, which makes this abundantly clear: a "biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone" (emphasis mine). You will note that it says "portrait photograph", not "candid action shot", and additionally that it says "alone", not "with a prop relating to their profession". There is no requirement that infobox photos of singers picture them singing, or that photos of scientists depict them in a white coat. This article is no different, and the current image fulfills the criteria, more so than proposed alternatives. If you have an issue with the manual of style, this is not the place to raise it. --WMSR (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR—of course there is no requirement that "photos of singers picture them singing". But we have a prevalent practice of depicting people speaking in our lead images. That is for the unsurprising reason that human beings use speech to broadcast their ideas to audiences. There is an almost endless supply of examples: Kavita Ramdas, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Tony Robbins, Ken Robinson (educationalist), Jon Ronson, Yves Rossy, Burt Rutan, Zainab Salbi, Andreas Schleicher, Barry Schwartz (psychologist), Sara Seager, Clay Shirky, Nate Silver, Sarah Silverman, Simon Sinek, Peter Singer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Jeff Smith (Missouri politician), Christopher Soghoian, Andrew Solomon, Bryan Stevenson, Jim Stolze, Tristram Stuart, James Surowiecki, Fred Swaniker. There is a reason why these sorts of images are chosen. In such photos body language and facial expressions show us not only what a person looks like but how they express themselves. And the "action" depicted is particularly engaging with readers. By way of contrast "portrait photographs" are less engaging. That is why I favor a "speaking" photo in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All you have demonstrated here is that there are not freely available portrait photos of those people you listed. Those photos were "chosen" because they were the only option. Regardless of how many articles you list, you are arguing for a change that does not conform to Wikipedia's MOS. If you want to change the MOS, this is the wrong venue. --WMSR (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

These are the images in question. For info only. I have no opinion any more. Apologies for posting in the wrong place previously.

File:Greta Thunberg (49419386372) (cropped).jpg

Image 1 (not in the article)

Image 2 (current lede)

Image 3 (not in the article)

Image 4 (uncropped version in the article)

Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I do like #1, though I think the article should contain an image from the early days, when she was younger, with the "signature" plaits. Esowteric+Talk 16:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is malformed. The question under consideration is only whether we should keep or replace the existing image. If we were meant to choose one image from a selection, the RfC needed to do that up front. Yes, the image that is not on the page is a good one. We should use that, but it need not be the lead image, so it is now premature to be attempting to choose one of those. The question of the RfC, once again, is whether the image currently in the lead should be kept or replaced. What it is replaced with is a different discussion out of scope for this RfC. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Sirfurboy, Quote: "This RfC is malformed. The question under consideration is only whether we should keep or replace the existing image. If we were meant to choose one image from a selection, the RfC needed to do that up front. Yes, the image that is not on the page is a good one. We should use that, but it need not be the lead image, so it is now premature to be attempting to choose one of those. The question of the RfC, once again, is whether the image currently in the lead should be kept or replaced. What it is replaced with is a different discussion out of scope for this RfC." Johnrichardhall (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Holy halo, what a mess. I don't think Bus Stop's actions should be seen as disruptive, since seeking an RFC was suggested by others, but ... Holy astringent plum-like lack of progress, what a disorder. If this is the only way to stop productive editors from discussing how best to roof a bicycle shed, then I suggest rotating that image, or even changing it just to appease those who are capable of generating long unproductive threads. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sluzzelin—I am sure there will be a limited number of Google hits for "astringent plum-like lack of progress" for the foreseeable future. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't bet against you (but "Holy astringent plum-like" is less limited ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• To all editors: I have been involved with Thunberg's article and in this specific discussion. This is probably not apropos herein this discussion but I want to express my gratitude for being allowed to edit. For the most part, I enjoyed my time and interactions with fellow editors. I will now be preoccupied with other endeavors and unable to continue to edit articles. In a few months that might change and I'll return. Hopefully, all editors involved with Thunberg's article simply want to document her life, whether in agreement with her activism or whether in opposition to it. She deserves (and dare I say, she has earned) a fair, impartial, biography. Again, thank you.Johnrichardhall (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• To all editors: Is there anyone left in this RfC who thinks the current image should remain in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bus stop, that's not how this works. Elizium23 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  My suggestion is to move the current image lower in the article. Do you disagree, Elizium23? Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. As I see it, we're in the middle of an RFC that seems to be showing a fairly overwhelming consensus to keep the current image in the lead; obviously I (and many many other people) think the current image should remain in the lead, and it seems bizarre that you'd suggest otherwise. Maybe I'm misunderstanding events, but it looks like you've declared that the RFC tabled, then immediately suggested a course of action that goes directly against the way it was trending? That doesn't make any sense to me. Normally when you table an RFC in the face of overwhelming opposition to your preferred outcome it means you're backing down. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't realise this was a knock-out competition. But yes, I think the current image should remain in the lede. Sorry if that wasn't 100% crystal clear. Or are we still going for closing the RfC as malformed? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, Martinevans123, you are entitled to your opinion, but some, including myself, are expressing support for Image 1 and Image 4 for the lede. (Obviously only one of the two.) I am additionally expressing support for the retention of the current image, but lower in the article. I understand the support for the current image—it is an impeccable image—flawless. But it is not sufficiently "active" to engage the reader's interest at the moment they first encounter the article. I think the best possible article is created by showing an "active" view of the subject, such as mid-speech. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, Bus stop, you are entitled to your opinion, but some, including myself, are suggesting this RfC is a dead duck. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123—that we can see a preference for "active" images in so many other articles may be an indication that there are advantages associated with such images. I've cited many such articles and it would be easy to cite many more. Contemporary people before microphones addressing audiences constitutes a very common lede image in biographies of living people. The current image has a deadening effect on the article's immediate presentation, relative to an image showing the subject actively engaged in verbal communication with a group of people. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Deadening effect" lol. As in the horse and beating thing, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123—have you looked at any other articles? The following are from articles I have already cited on this page. But I could easily cite many more that I have not yet mentioned. Would you not agree that the images of Taylor Wilson, Chade-Meng Tan, Fred Swaniker, Jim Stolze, Simon Sinek, J. J. Abrams engage a reader? They engage a reader because they depict our special human ability to verbally communicate. Isn't there more immediate interest in such images than in images containing a meek and compliant smile? The current image is fine, but the first image a reader encounters should immediately "grab" the reader, almost on a visceral level. This isn't a formula that I have figured out. Credit goes to the many editors who have placed "active" images in the ledes of contemporary biographies. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, yes credit I'm sure. Hoorah. Well done them, unwittingly or not. Maybe you should try and get that accepted as an MoS policy, or even a guideline?. Meanwhile, "other halos exist", as they say in IKEA. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123—who cares about "MoS policy...or...guideline"? Everything isn't about bureaucracy. If you feel the current image should be in the lede—why? Relative to Image 1 or Image 4, why do you prefer the current image? Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Current image is good for the lead. The fact that it's iconic (which nobody seems to be disputing, just generally disliking when people mention) does matter per WP:ASTONISH; the purpose of the lead image should be to capture the most generally well-known image of the subject, not to try and convince the reader by choosing an image based on the message it sends. An iconic image is therefore the default choice. Arguments like Is the subject of the article passive, nonverbal, and angelic? No, the subject of the article is known as a forceful speaker. The words she uses are tinged with cynicism. "You have stolen my childhood with your empty words". The subject of the article can be disagreeable, and I mean that in a good way are automatically disqualifying, since they outright admit to a desire to use the image to push the reader towards a view of the subject that matches the editor. That is not how we choose lead images. Our job is to determine how the subject is generally portrayed, visually, and use that - which means the iconic image is ideal. If people feel that it doesn't portray the subject the way they, personally, see her, they should take it up with the sources that made that image iconic by using it so heavily; Wikipedia isn't the place to start trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by trying to push for a visual of the subject that you personally feel is more honest or whatever. --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion—you are saying "the iconic image is ideal". Please define what you mean by "iconic". Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I can see this is a snow close, and if Bus stop is willing to de-activate the RfD template per WP:RFCEND, I will close this RfC as such. Please ping me. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Does it need saying that RfC is short for "Request for Comments". The point is to ask a question and then let other editors comment. The question here is whether we should keep the current lead image or replace the current lead image. That is the only question asked. No other question is being considered. Having asked the question, the idea is to listen to the comments from other editors. It is not to argue with every single comment. Bus stop, you have made 23 interventions in this RfC alone. If you argue back with everything everyone says, you are not requesting comments at all. You are merely continuing the same argument you have been making every month since October.

Now some neutral editor has to read through this mess and determine consensus, and I pity them. This is not how you request comments. This is just a mess. And consider this: when making a case for something, you only really get one go at it. You get one chance when no one has begun to form opinions when you can make a good and detailed logical argument for your point of view, and hope to persuade people with your argument. If you did not manage at the first attempt, you might redeem the case with a second attempt (although it will be harder). By the time you write your third post, if people are still unconvinced, it is doubtful you will change any minds. When you get to your 23rd intervention of your sixth thread, and you have at least 20 interventions in each of the other threads, it is probably time to put the whip down and step away from the equine carcass.

Can we please stop now? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo

2020 photo is better than 2019 photo, 2019 photo looks like shes at ikea and the 2020 is her being giving a speech in Davos, what shes known for Fazevbucks (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, at least IKEA Israel was planning to eliminate single-use plastics by the beginning of 2020. So I guess it's done some good. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See the ongoing RfC above. – Teratix ₵ 00:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Invalid argument martin, 2020 should be usedFazevbucks (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The action photo ("2020 photo") further individualizes the subject. I agree with Fazevbucks. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We want to replace the Davos 2020 video with a still picture? Or place it in the sub-section immediately above? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am just saying that action photos individualize the people depicted. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah right. Thanks for clearing that up. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of us have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, but when we begin to speak we further distinguish ourselves from other people with two eyes a nose and a mouth because not all people speak alike. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greta Thunberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CodexJustin (talk · contribs) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The assessment may take a few days to put together which I plan to prepare. In the meantime, I am noticing a large number of footnotes in the lead section which usually should appear in the main article. Could one of the editors move the footnotes into the main article while the assessment is being prepared. CodexJustin (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

moved from other subsection, mobile edit gone wrong

With controversial articles like this one, my experience is that it's better to leave them in, per WP:LEADCITE. We could reduce them for the least controversial sentences if that's okay. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After checking the recent edit history of the article, it appears that the editing has been fairly stable. It seems that 15 citations in the lead section is a little too much. I suggest moving at least half of these citations into the main article where they can be more fully developed. I will return to the lead section before the conclusion of this assessment. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a couple (they were often already in the main article, or wouldn't have caused overcite if added), but I feel like we shouldn't remove many more as all of those cites are after sentences that easily can and often have been challenged. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Start of assessment

1. The lead section correctly calls her Swedish and then switches to British spelling in the following paragraph for "honours". The article needs to stick to one format, and American seems to be used throughout the article at present. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'm not that familiar with the difference between European/British English and American English, but I couldn't find any Americanisms in the text. I think sticking to British/European English is slightly more logical, as that is what we get taught (at least in Sweden/Netherlands) at school.

   The general idea is that biography articles for Americans follows American usage, for British biographies British usage, for others the prevalence of the citations usage seems to be the rule of thumb to use. Most of the cites in the article at present appear to be from American publishers. If British is more 'logical' as you say, then briefly indicate why this is so here since most of the citations appear to be American sources. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'm aware of the general rule, but since she's Swedish there is only a weak link to European/British English. The MoS is clear that sources don't play a role in deciding here and that status quo is to be kept if no ties can be esatblished. The British Guardian seems the most prominent source for this article, with other European sources and Australian prominent as well. I'm not willing to change all the dates into, for my eyes ugly, American formatting, nor is that a requirement for GA. I've been doing some searches for americanisms, but I've still not found any. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   British is fine if that's what you are going with, then you can add a British Usage template on the Talk page to clue in all new editors. CodexJustin (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

2. It is not clear that her extensive patrinomic 6 part name needs to be covered in the lead section, and it might look better in Early life section. Also note that the pronunciation key you have at the end of this article is currently at the end of this article when it usually appears in the birth date field after the name in the lead section along with any other IPA information which might be available (there is no IPA here at present). The audio pronunciation key belongs up here at the top right after her name. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   There has been extensive discussion about it. I think consensus veered towards not including it, but so many drive-by editors wanted to include all five names that we gave up? I'll reread the discussions again, but will not be changing things against local consensus.

   It appears that the approach taken on the Picasso biography on Wikipedia might be useful to look at for this. Are you stating that you tried to move the 6-part partinomic to the Early life section, and that after you moved it that other editors were still objecting to it being in the Early life section? If you have the link to the edit warring you mention then place it here. I think the Picasso article format looks better. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    Not done I've read over the WP:BLP and WP:MOS again, and the three discussions in the archives and see no policy reason not to include her full name. Three middle names is not that ridiculous. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

3. Second paragraph of Early life reads "made public by her mother...in a similar situation, as she said." Closing phrase 'as she said' can be dropped. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done

4. Under Activism section in the third paragraph "climate strike" should indicate the scale she had in mind for it, such as "large climate strike" or "large scale climate strike". Merge this paragraph with the following which starts with "In May 2018" into one paragraph. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   The source doesn't state what she had in mind. She asked a couple of friends to come with, who refused. Not sure whether there is a plan here. I did merge the two paragraphs. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

5. Could you consider adding a new subsection break for the paragraph which starts with "Thunberg posted", something like "Internet Activism: Expanding school strikes". CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   Hmmm, I think that won't work because she continues to use social media for her activism, so it sort of breaks the chronology.. On the other hand, the school strikes have continued as well when she went away. I'll think about it a bit more. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   Maybe "Social media activism" or something like that. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

6. At the end of this section the chronology switches back to 2018 after moving to 2019. Could you check this chronology? CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done. I think this was solved by switching two paragraphs around. The paragraph before, about her interaction with Rentzhog spans a longer period, so I think it's logical if that stays together. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

7. Next section title might looks better as "2019 visits abroad" since it includes Canada and Portugal as well. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done I've made a bit more drastic change as heading it under her sabatical year and making three subsubsection (NA, COP, Further Europe). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

8. The reference to "native land" might need some qualification or added wording, for example, native land of whom? CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Provided link and changed wording.Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

9. Section on Thunberg's message might look stronger integrated into the previous section, especially if you can date the four interwoven themes to a specific date when they were first used together, and then add them into chronological sequence in the previous section. Wording for the second point stating "responsible for climate change" might read better as "responsible for inheriting the climate change problem". CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   Upon further investigation of sources, that section is way weaker than I had thought before. Quite a few politicians do have sections about their views, and I think having it written down explicitly does make sense. However, the distillation of these four themes seems to be a wee bit of WP:OR. I'll try to find a good overview article about her views. One of the themes I'm missing is her solidarity with non-white people around the globe, for instance recently reflected in her comments about Vanessa Nakate being cropped out of an image. What do you think of such an article? Compare for instance Femke Halsema and Jeremy Corbyn. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   Let me know when the NOR issues are resolved in your viewpoint. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

10. Same comment for her Speeches subsection and integrating the key speeches into the main Activism section in chronological order with a strong short quote when possible. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done? I integrated the speech into the Activism section and made a new bibliography section to preserve information about her published speeches. Do you think the article would benifit from more quotations. I'm leaving the action summit quotations somewhat elaborate, as I do believe this to be her most famous speech. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

11. Public response and impact section under International support can be merged into one single paragraph, without the orphan sentences appearing as single paragraphs. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

12. The Greta effect paragraph has an orphan sentence which should be merged into one of the paragraphs in that section. The paragraph starting "Inspired by Thunberg" refers to US investors making donations in pounds sterling, which looks odd. Could you verify this? CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done, thanks @Paulmlieberman:. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

13. Flygskam section might be misplaced. Who is asserting that Greta is the cause of all this? If Greta is not cited as a direct cause of this then it might better be placed in one the many Wikipedia articles for environmental concerns. The opening sentence phase 'because of its environmental impact' should be offset in commas or parenthesis. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    I've added a sentence to made the link to Thunberg more clear. While of course no single person or event can be attributed as the cause for any environmental movement, Thunberg is very strongly linked to the campaign of flying less and leaving it out completely would do the article a disservice. I think parenthesis are not correct in this case, as it implies a quote or something that cannot be said in Wikivoice. The environmental impact of flying is an undeniable fact, so that would give the wrong impression. My grammatical intuition wouldn't like to see commas there either. Instead I've cut of the second clause from the sentence (the hashtag), rendering the rest of the sentence more manageable. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    "Very strongly linked" in your words, with her prominence added, is a point of emphasis which is normally reflected in the text of the article. Does it reach the level of "She is one of the principal voices in the movement", or something similar? Starting this section with the words "Thunberg is a strong supporter of Flygskam activism", would like stronger than the current version. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

14. Section title for Criticism and Thunberg's responses might read better as "Government and institutional criticism". The start of this section might read better as "Thunberg's activism and her campaigns have been criticized...", or something like that. Also remove the full stop colon in that sentence and replace with the words "such as...". The list of names in this first paragraph do not match up with the sequence of paragraphs which follow. The supporting paragraphs appear to be in chronological order, with Trump's comments separated from each other, which seems a little unorganized. The first paragraph should match up with the sequence of the criticism you cover in the supporting paragraphs which follow it in this section. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done? Per another discussion on the talk page, I've completely reshuffled three sections to avoid any section called critisism. Order now fixed, and semi-colon removed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

15. The section "Public response to attacks" might read more encyclopedic as simply "Press criticism". The Joe Biden comment at the end of this section is not even a criticism and possibly can be presented with the previous Trump comments, but not in this section. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done See previous response. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

16. Section on Popular culture uses italic for her book title but leaves the year "2019" without italic. Is there any update or release date for the 2020 documentary you mention here? CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    I don't quite understand your first point. Which book are you referring to? I've checked the Hulu documentary on Google News, but no further specification of release date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    The current reference to the book read as: Greta Thunberg, 2019. Her name is in italic and the year is not. It looks like the fonts are mismatched. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done. The title was referring to a painting. Could you check whether this is now clear? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

17. The section on Honors and awards is becoming a little lengthy and is apt to get longer with time. I suggest doing an article split here for "Greta Thunberg honor and awards" or some similar title once you settle the American or British spelling for this Swedish citizen. The list is already rather long. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Ex nihil:, since you've done most work on this recently, what do you think? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

    So far, most of the separate articles on Honours and awards were for the likes of Obama.. Not sure if it's the time already. I feel like we can avoid a split still if we prune a bit. I'm proposing to prune the following: children's climate prize, le prix liberte, GQ gamechanger award, and the Webby award. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

    The split is not that difficult to do and I could provide a link for it being done on other articles if you might like to see that its fairly straightforward. If someone typed them in with citations, then are you sure that you want to prune them? CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

     Not done

    CodexJustin, this is a matter of Wikipedia philosophy I think. I'm an WP:exclusionist and believe articles as best of only containing highly relevant information. I've opted for removing some of the awards and will wait how other editors respond. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

18. Nice going on the formatted citations throughout the article. I notice that Businessweek, Jan 20, 2020, pp 35-36 has just done a story about Davos with Greta present in hat and gloves stating: "We don't want these things done by 2050, 2030, or even 2021, we want these things done by right now." Might be nice to highlight this in some way in this biography. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That should get things started I think, and nice going on the formatted citations throughout. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several new responses added overnight, and some of the previous questions you have left unanswered and I will wait to hear from you. Your ping to Ex nihil is still unanswered. I have corrected simple typos is both my text from yesterday and some of your text as well, you can change back these simple typos as you prefer. There are several citation requests which other editors have added over night. Let me know when you have your new responses ready. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind people correcting my typos. I've corrected the indentation, so that all of your input remains nicely numbered. Halfway done maybe. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your notice just appeared on my page and let me know when you are ready for an update assessment of the full article. The other common format for audible pronunciation is not to code them as footnotes and simply to present them in the lead section birth-death field next to the name in parenthesis (for example, Leo Tolstoy). Ping me when ready for the updated assessment of the full article. CodexJustin (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

CodexJustin, I'm ready! Your comments have improved the page a lot already :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Assessment 1/29/2020

There are enough changes that I am doing a complete read through. The edits made by you so far have significantly moved the article forward. Assessment comments are section by section as last time. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Lead section audio and IPA look better this way. There is no evidence of edit warring on the lead section at this time and I am going to again request a cut back on the citations presently shown in the lead section. Eight is too much. The principle is that the lead section should only be summarizing material as it is already established in the biography article itself. Try to move all of the citations and information into the main biography sections and activism sections. Try not to exceed 2-3 cites at most in the lead section. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   I moved another two cites. The policy in WP:LEADCITE is quite clear that statements in the lede that are likely to be challenged need a cite, as well a direct citations. The article is currently semi-protected, so from the recent history it won't be immediately clear that the remaining cites are mainly after sentences that have been challenged. I believe it to be against policy to move more cites from the lede. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

   There are still 8 cites showing up in the current version of the article. The article is also under page protection now and it seems that there are no issues with edit warring in the lede section. May I ask you to remove all the citations from the lede section and make sure that they are in the main body of the article. It seems to me that any edit warring in the lead section would be nearly as likely to occur as edit warring in the main body of the article. Now that the article is page protected for a year, then all of the citations in the lead section should be removed from the lead section and placed into the main body of the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

   Six in the lede, two in the infobox. Edit warring is only the ultimate stage of 'likely to be challenged'. Furthermore, that the content is likely to be challenged in the main article as well is irrelevant, as people often only read thelede. Semi-protection is also not that important, as readers without the ability to edit, that don't have any knowledge of WP:LEAD might still want to challenge the material. As a service to those readers, we should keep them in. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

2. The Early life section, in its last paragraph, "When she started...", seems to cite her 2018 book "Scenes" after her December 2019 BBC interview. Should be chronological. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Activism section might be called "Career and activism". Her biography is still a life in progress and her student life (career) deserves to be noted alongside her activism. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   Hmm.. I don't think that will work as (secondary) education is typically not considered part of a career. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

   Possibly "Education and activism". CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

   Per MOS:HEADINGS section titles should follow similar rules as article titles, such as WP:AND. If preventable, don't use and in a section title. I realize we break that rule here often, but I have found it difficult to separate other sections. Here we only have a single line about her education, and I don't think that is sufficient ground to break with the policy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

4. Opening sentence "In late 2018..." should be dated to July or August, whichever is correct. Also could you add the dates in parenthesis or full-stop notation to the subsection titles throughout the Activism section. For example, "School strike (July 2018- August 2018)". CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done and  Not done. I don't like very long subsection titles and I think it doesn't add much. I've tried to give the subsections better headings instead. Does that work? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

5. Wording for second paragraph "Thunberg finished by urging..." to "Thunberg finishes the song by urging". CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

6. Could you date the Social media activism section as August 2018-December 2018 in the section title here. Start the first sentence there with the date, for example, "In August 2018, Thunberg posted her original..." CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   I've removed In August 2018 as to not repeat the first words of the previous subsection. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

7. Dating for Sabbatical year section should be "August 2019-present" in parenthesis in the section title. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   See above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

8. Give the dates for the sections for "UN climate action summit (23 September 2019)" and "Autumn global climate strikes (27 September 2019). You should make some note that there appears to be a gap in the article which becomes apparent, after you do this dating of sections, where Jan 2019 to Aug 2019 appears to have no biographical coverage, if you could look at this. The long quote at the end of the "UN climate" section should either be in blockquote format or it should be shortened. My screen has it as a 6-line quotation which seems long. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   I've added a full paragraph with what she was up to in this period. Well spotted, thanks :). The big strikes took place on 20 and 27 September, with some more minor ones in October, so dating that would be incorrect. I've shortened the quote. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

9. Add dating of section for "Participation at COP25 (November 2019-December 2019)". The first sentence in this section is very long, the words "in Santiago, Chile in December" could be changed to "originally scheduled in Santiago, Chile in December" with full stop added to end the sentence after "...December". The next sentence would start with the word "However" capitalized. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done

10. Section title to include dates "Further activism in Europe (December 2019-January 2020)". Or, the full stop version would look like "Further activism in Europe: December 2019-January 2020". CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

     Not done per above.

11. "Views" might have a more precise title such as "Thunberg's interpretation of scientific community consensus" or "Thunberg's interpretation of climate change data". Something like that. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    That is only half of the section's content, with the other half about equity and climate justice. Also, I feel that that wording has the feeling of stating facts as opinions. She doesn't really interpret that much, often literally quoting consensus assessments. Political views might be a better one, in line with an article as Femke Halsema. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    "Political views" is better. CodexJustin (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done

12. In the Public response section, if you are saying that she has been celebrated and vilified in the press or by politicians then you might want to word this more directly than the current "strong support", which currently looks like an echo of editor-talk at Wikipedia. I suggest a full stop in the first paragraph here after the quoted words "Greta effect", followed by "She is also associated with the trend..." as a new sentence. Under the Politicians section, Putin in October is still shown before Barkindo in July which should be chronological. I don't think you need to single out Trump's comments, just simply state something like "Trump has engaged indirectly with Thunberg on two occasions in September 2019 and December 2019 with Trump first stating that...". You can then merge that section to be between the Barkindo quote and the Putin quote in the preceding section, in chronological order. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    There appears to be some Trump discussion on the article's Talk page as well which you can discuss with the editors there to reach a preferred approach to this item. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    Trump is now downplayed compared to before. Barkindo (that was the OPEC guy right?) has been removed. Some more conservative voices are in the Activism section (pope, French parliamentarians). I've decided to keep Trump's comments in one place, breaking chronology a bit. As Trump may have engaged more than twice, I'm not keen on putting a specific number in the text. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

13. "The Greta effect" section seems to be out of sequence with the August 2019 paragraph coming before the February 2019 paragraph in this same section. It should be chronological. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

     Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

14. There is quite a bit about Greta at Davos in the press at this time, along with her speech, and along with the quote I presented previously, which is not covered as a section in the current article. Is the passage in your "Further activism" section all that is intended for Davos. CodexJustin (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think that quote is particularly notable, and this article is prone to suffer from a surplus of Thunberg quotes, where we should let secondary sources speak more. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

15. Another request from me to split the page for the Honours and awards section to a new page. If the rest of this assessment goes as previously, I could offer to do the split for you at the end, though you still would need to take care of the other comments above as well. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

    Hey, just want to give you my two cents as a fellow GA reviewer. I personally think, at this point in time, the "Honours and awards" section is probably fine to stay in the main article. It does need trimming because 25 bullet points is a bit excessive. I would write that section in prose, and then use a couple of bullet points for some of the awards. As per MOS: Lists, these should be kept short and for "extremely brief" material. Perhaps some of the awards/honours could be integrated with the section "Public response and impact"? In future, a separate page is a good idea though. I hope the rest of the article goes well, as it will be up to CodexJustin to pass anyway. Thanks, Just Lizzy^(talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Lizzy150: This sounds like a workable solution and possibly you could confirm it as a useful option with Femkemilene. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    I've read through the manual of style for lists again and noted that they ideally have an introductionary paragraph. I've added one. I've removed more of Thunberg's own words, so that the bullet points are not overly long, and removed one more award for not being very notable (some gamers magazine). Pruned some overcitation.

    @Lizzy: thanks for chiming in :). The comment about lists being 'extremely short' was about when to number and when to bullet point lists, saying that in cases you'd normally number the items, you wouldn't do so if the list is extremely short. I've tried converting the list to prose in the past, but we went back to bullets because that accrued a lot of unnecessary detail. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Your article (as edited by you for GAN) has made good progress and it looks like you are over half way there. Let me know when you are ready and if you would like the page split done for you at the end if all else is amenable. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of "you" is vague here and would better be replaced with the name of the editor that is being addressed. Moreover, "your article" seems inappropriate WP:OWN Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At the start of the GAN I was only 4th is authorship. I agree with Veritycheck that 'your' article is slightly odd. However, as nobody else had responded to the GAN, the you was clear I believe. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At present, I do not see any issues with WP:Ownership at all and Femkemilene appears to be moving the article forward. The phrase I used was shorthand for "The article as being edited by the nominating editor and being assessed by the reviewer editor", which might be a little wordy if I repeat it over and over. I could generally refer to your GAN editing using whatever phrase you prefer. There are currently no Ownership issues with the article. I will wait for you to ping me when the remaining items in the above list are ready. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CodexJustin, I think I've answered all of your points. I also added a paragraph in Arts & Pop culture about music, to further balance the article's now shortened lists with awards. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The article in its current state has been templated for the current events and the Nobel prize nomination. This material was added by someone into the lead section and must appear as developed material in the main body of the article. It should be added at this time. The section which has just been retitled "Thurnberg's message" is very short and might look better if merged as a 2 paragraph introduction to the Activism section and its subsections. This "message" section should be merged into the Activism section. Third, the article in its current form has a substantially enhanced and modified version of the table of contents, with significant alterations to the developed material in the article. A fourth item which appears not covered is her education and educational plans; how close is she to graduating, which school is she attending, does she plan to go to university, does she wish to be a doctor or a lawyer or enter politics, etc. A newly rendered and rewritten version of the lead section should be supplied in the article to accurately reflect the significant changes to the table of contents and the contents of the article. This will be needed in order for the article to pass as a GA. CodexJustin (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 Nobel prize now added to lede and honours section. I disagree the article would benefit from merging "political views" into the chronological Activism section. I've renamed it again, as message is a heading I expect on a promotional website. I've rewritten the lede to be more cohesive and represent more of the article's diverse content. I've added a sentence about her having finished lower secondary school, and I believe upper secondary school would last another three years. Which school she attended is not very widely published and I prefer to keep such (semi?)-private information private.

I appreciate reviewing such a busy article isn't always easy. Thanks for doing it! Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A few comments to follow up on your progress through the lead section and that you should make the most of this chance to trim as much of the many citations as possible. Your new lead section can also remove the parts which may have previously (months and months ago) have caused reverts and previous poor editing conduct. I see no reason for 2 citations for "straightforward speaking style", and footnote 6, 7, 8, and 9 really not accomplishing all that much if anything. Take the lead section editing you just did one step further and trim the unneeded citations from the lead section. She has a straightforward speaking style. Readers will get this. They can read about it in the article if they want the extra citations. CodexJustin (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You must admit Thunberg is a controversial figure right? For what other purposes was the WP:LEADCITE policy developed than for controversial statements like this? I repeat from policy (emph mine): Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. The policy is clear that poor editing conduct isn't even a requirement, only a high likelihood of challenging. Make sure you don't impose your own preferences for articles on a GAR. Would bundling citation 3 and 4 be an improvement to you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is on the top 100 list of Wikipedia articles for last year. At the same time there is no evidence of there being reverts or edit warring about the lead section which would call for and require all the "supportive" citations which were there last week. The current article is reasonably well written and has an improved table of contents now, as opposed to last week, to help guide future editing, there are tick marks for virtually all of the review categories with all images checking out and all the citations appear to be current and formatted. The article appears ready for upcoming edits during the coming year. Closing assessment. CodexJustin (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections do not belong

The Criticism and Thunberg's responses section and the Public responses to attacks sections are pure garbage. Its just a list of copied/pasted things which were said about article subject. That is very bad. It is completely unremarkable for someone to criticize another. Whole paragraphs are just copies of tweets. This is how a child would write. The fact that Joe Biden tweeted something is irrelevant to the article subject. These sections should be scraped wholesale because they do not provide knowledge about the subject. We wants facts, summarised into first person voice. If someone were to convert these sections to prose without quotations they would end up with a whole lot of nothing except trivial gossip, puerile rhetoric and inappropriate propaganda. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Spot on. 86.187.233.204 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How dare you! 99.203.17.18 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fan page written by some D.O.M. That's how. 86.187.233.204 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please can we cool this. 86.187.0.0/16, you are, I think, close to being reported at ANI for WP:ASPERSIONS. You have had two edits on talk reverted already and this latest statement is quite unacceptable. Sadly one of the edits that should probably not be here was reinstated by another editor. Another edit by another IP (that looks tongue in cheek if we WP:AGF) was just reverted (probably because it was interpreted as being in bad faith) and then reinstated. If there are any more aspersions cast, I or another editor is likely to take this to ANI. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"... copies of tweets. This is how a child would write." Surely not!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To try to raise the level of seriousness here, I completely agree with Shiftchange. I'm certain that somewhere in our guidelines there is advice that Criticism sections are a bad thing, but I can't find it right now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Essay, but it's something: Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section. Critisism sections are often sub-par writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We recently made it less prominent as a subsection, but that's probably not enough. I'll be reshuffling it with international support into a section called International reception with subsection: politicians (donald trump + others) and press. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Good article" nomination?

If this is a "good article nominee" then the standard needs raising, big time. 86.187.233.204 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can nominate anything. It does not mean it is good, but it was nominated. The difference is that people take the nomination seriously if it's not obviously a bad choice. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:ED83:1D08:ABEE:2907 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The nomination brings with it a procedure to improve the article. Since the nomination the structure has improved and some potential promotional material has been removed. If you have any concrete suggestions how to improve, we're listening :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly surprised it would be stable enough for a GA-nom, but good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the stability criterion isn't that strict. There must not be any edit warring going on within the article (so talk page doens't matter) and we musn't have big disagreements about content. Quickly evolving content is actually okay. I've been eyeing this page for GAN for half a year and now felt it was sufficiently stable to try. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Woah, hey, "evolving content"? Don't people believe in "content creators" anymore? What would Pope Francis say? Are we "creation deniers"? Elizium23 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing when editing-- see article's "view history"

Is it appropriate to editorialize when describing an edit? The following was posted by Bus stop in the edit description (see "view history" of article): "Without expanding to any degree within the confines of the lede about how her "sudden rise to world fame has made her...a target" we may as well not mention that it has "made her...a target". The rest of the paragraph (in the lede) makes no mention her being a "target"—the rest of the paragraph merely expands on how it has made her a "leader". (original 07.02, 25 January 2020) SignorUgarte (talk)

@SignorUgarte: I don't quite understand your question. Could you clarify? I think the fact that she gets critisism should be mentioned in the lede. The current sentence (without target) feels a bit off and could easily be left out entirely. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

New to editing (under 20 edits). I just wanted to know if I could run on at length in the edits summery or should it be brought to the talk pages. I have no opinion concerning the topic: leader/target.I'm so new forgot I forgot to sign my statement above which I just did. Thanks. SignorUgarte (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SignorUgarte—this is an edit summary. I am explaining why I made the edit. How is it "editorializing"? I agree with Femkemilene that "The current sentence (without target) feels a bit off and could easily be left out entirely." Bus stop (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, was just trying to define "briefly describe your changes" for myself. I misused the word "editorializing" as a descriptor for "not briefly." Thanks, I probably should have asked on the editor's talk page and not here. SignorUgarte (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You could have responded by pointing out that I failed to "Avoid long summaries". Thank you for giving me a break on that. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I've been out of the loop on this. I've not been in the best of health (better now). I actually really appreciate Bus stop's explanation, as I was the one who wrote that sentence, and I think Bus stop is correct. Now I see that the sentence is entirely gone, and the paragraph lacks an organizing first sentence. I will try to correct this soon (at work just now), and put back the "target" part, with corroborating statements. Some of you may disagree with me on the need for this, but I believe Wikipedia articles benefit from expository statements, especially in the lede ("An expository paragraph presents facts, gives directions, defines terms, and so on. It should clearly inform readers about a specific subject." Exposition (narrative)). Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Paulmlieberman, and I think another editor above expresses agreement when they say "I think the fact that she gets criticism should be mentioned in the lede." Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

Greta: In popular culture and art - new single by electronic music producer JKL called Wonder Greta with lyrics inspired by Greta Thunberg: How Dare You? 82.150.166.105 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided a reference to a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Greta-Jodler (how dare you) von GLITZER GISCHI --Mmgst23 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Assuming motivation or intent?

Hi, one of the image captions was changed from "Thunberg promoting her campaign at the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos" to "Thunberg giving a speech at the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos", then reverted.

Clearly, the replacement is factual and neutrally-worded. Is the original editorializing by assuming Thunberg's motive or intent; is it mildly pejorative; or is this assessment borne-out by the actual content of the speech? Esowteric+Talk 13:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Thanks for scruninizing my contributions :). As the person first changing the caption, let me try and explain my rationale a bit more. Like Esowteric says, I believe saying that Thunberg was promoting her campaign is editorializing. Two words are slightly off I feel. promoting is the editorializing bit: we're interpreting what she's doing there. her isn't entirely correct either as the School climate strikes are an international movement with multiple figureheads, the possessive implying it's only hers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I would change it to "Thunberg speaking at the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos". I don't think "editorializing" is the question here. The question is one of "gratuitousness". Do we need to know that Thunberg is "promoting her campaign"? Such wording might be appropriate in the body of the article. It would much less likely be appropriate in the caption of an image. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the revision had read, more blatantly, "Thunberg pushing her warez at the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos", the implication would be clear. Esowteric+Talk 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of captions is to supplement images. Image captions can be easily misused. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit [delays due to outages at Wikimedia today] Esowteric+Talk 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed some interminable delays. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump subsection - bloat.

This weird sub-section, at the same structural level as the Politicians sub-section (is Trump not a politician?) has today had a paragraph added to it about what Steve Mnuchin and his wife think about Thunberg. Mnuchin isn't Trump, so it's obviously in the wrong place at best. Nor is his wife. As the Mnuchin comment was completely predictable, and very non-notable considering who his boss is, and his wife is an actress(!), I saw this as inappropriate, trivial bloat and removed it. It was quickly re-added by another editor, one who only registered less than a week ago. That re-adding has not changed my mind. I accept the massive mount of criticism in this article very reluctantly. It's all highly predictable and adds nothing. We all already know what they think about anything in this area of discussion. But I will strongly oppose the addition of more such nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)