Talk:How to Blow Up a Pipeline

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that nonviolence advocate Tim DeChristopher described How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm as "a humble and nuanced case" for sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure? Source: "advocates of nonviolence (such as myself)", "Malm offers a humble and nuanced case for how sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure and machinery might be “synergetic and complementary” to a movement largely centered around nonviolent mass mobilization."
  • ALT1:... that the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm does not actually include instructions for blowing up a pipeline? Source: NYT Book Review, "I should add that there aren’t any actual instructions here about how to blow anything up"

• Reviewed: John Thomas Douglass

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC).

Article is:

New enough

Long enough

Within policy (the "six-point analysis" sentence in reaction to DeChristopher's review is not attributed. I'd prefer it was.) Neutrality and citations are fine.

Hook is (ALT1 is the most interesting):

Short enough

Interesting, accurate, neutral

QPQ is done.

Overall: should be GTG after the copyright issue is fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Theleekycauldron! I've tweaked the paragraph on DeChristopher's review to fix the copyright issue. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: No problem! Should be good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:How to Blow Up a Pipeline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• Comma after "In the book"
  • Done
• "criticizes pacifism within the climate movement as well as "climate fatalism" outside it." → "criticizes both pacifism within the climate movement and "climate fatalism" outside of it."
  • Done
• Delink pacifism and sabotage in the second paragraph, as they were already linked above
  • Done

Background

• Don't use "spring 2018" as a descriptor, per MOS:SEASON
• Same with "summer of the same year"
  • These are Malm's own fault, since they're from an interview with him. I switched to "in the first half of 2018" and "later that year" since he's almost certainly referring to Northern Hemisphere seasons.
• ""was in total despair mode."" → ""was in total depair mode"." per MOS:LQ
  • Done
• "expected to be arguing" → "expected to argue"
  • Done
• Verso Books should be linked in the body
  • Done

Synopsis

Learning from Past Struggles

• Delink "non-violence", as it has already been linked above
  • Done

Breaking the Spell

• ""long and venerable tradition of sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure,"" → ""long and venerable tradition of sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure"," per MOS:LQ
  • Done
• ""insufficient politicisation of the climate crisis."" → ""insufficient politicisation of the climate crisis"." per MOS:LQ
  • Done
• ""we must insist on it being different in kind from the violence that hits a human (or an animal) in the face,"" → ""we must insist on it being different in kind from the violence that hits a human (or an animal) in the face"," per MOS:LQ
  • Done

Fighting Despair

• ""an eminently understandable emotional response to the crisis, but unserviceable as a response for a politics in it."" → ""an eminently understandable emotional response to the crisis, but unserviceable as a response for a politics in it"." per MOS:LQ
  • Done
• Continued LQ issues throughout: even if the end of a sentence is included in the quote, the period should only be inside the quote if the entire sentence is being quoted
  • Done

Reception

Reviews

• LQ issues noted above
  • Done
• "for blowing anything up" → "for creating explosions" as both a paraphrase and to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition
  • Done

By notable figures

• Good outside of LQ issues noted above
  • Issues fixed

Opposition

• LQ issues noted above
  • Issues fixed
• No comma needed after "in September 2021" unless you swap "and spoke" for "speaking"
  • Removed
• No need to add the specification about the New Yorker Radio Hour in the third paragraph, as it was already detailed in the second
  • Removed and reworded

Cover

• Good

References

• Good

General comments

• Images are properly licensed and relevant
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig tweaked out on me, but considering most of the quotes are direct, I'm going to AGF

That's all from me! Mostly minor, quick issues. Ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review and especially the MOS:LQ lessons, GhostRiver! Changes made. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel that LQ only really makes sense after you've had to correct yourself over and over (like lots of our MOS quirks). In any case, everything looks good on my end, passing now! — GhostRiver 16:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)