This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
A fact from Chris Armstrong (political theorist) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
... that the British political theoristChris Armstrong calls for a "blue new deal" to secure ecological resilience for the ocean and a justblue 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!
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I’m happy to compete a review later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No worries. I'm glad everyone is happy and we can move on to bigger and better things. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)