Talk:Greta Thunberg/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Start of assessment[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maybe "Social media activism" or something like that. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done Provided link and changed wording.Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let me know when the NOR issues are resolved in your viewpoint. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done, thanks @Paulmlieberman:. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done See previous response. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Assessment 1/29/2020[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Possibly "Education and activism". CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wording for second paragraph "Thunberg finished by urging..." to "Thunberg finishes the song by urging". CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dating for Sabbatical year section should be "August 2019-present" in parenthesis in the section title. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done
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)[reply]
Not done per above.
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Political views" is better. CodexJustin (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]