Talk:Localisation (humanitarian practice)

Merger

Following the AfD of Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation, which resulted in a consensus to merge it into here, I've done the merger, I hope correctly. This is my first merger. So wasn't sure about the following:

1. - I copied everything, is that cool?
2. - I also copied the infobox, I'm unsure about that, especially as it appears half way down the page and made the title italics.

I don't see any of these issues as crises or urgent, but a second option from someone more experienced would be welcome. CT55555 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Variety of English & date format

Since localisation is a British spelling, I am wondering if we should place the {{EngvarB}} or {{Use British English}} templates into this article. Please see MOS:ENGVAR for the Manual of Style guidance on this.

Similarly, we should also decide which {{Use dmy dates}} / {{Use mdy dates}} template to place. If we are using EngvarB or British English, we should use the first date template.

I am not looking for a lengthy discussion, just the concurrence of a couple of other editors on this matter. Peaceray (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the article and I find that all very agreeable. I did spend a lot of time trying to assess if I should use the British or US version of the word, I concluded the British version was mostly used, noting a lot of the efforts detailed here were by UK based organisations and I think the United Nations uses British English more often. With that in mind, I guess the UK norm of DMY is best. I don't have any strong feelings. But I also wonder if many people will see this, I edited it and I think you're the first person to comment ever. The main article hasn't had much input from anyone and has only a handful of views per day. This page, invariably none, sometimes one. CT55555 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The {{Use dmy dates}} template has the effect of converting all the dates to the dmy format. The English variety templates simply put it in the hidden category, but anyone editing the wikitext can see it as well. It is handy if one is reverting an undesirable spelling change from one variety to another, because one can always refer to the template being there. I will go ahead & add the appropriate templates. Peaceray (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for the clear improvements you've made already. I'm following along. I spotted a couple of typos that I made, but am waiting for you to finish to avoid any edit conflicts. CT55555 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata description

I am done for now. Do you think you can add a short, terse description for the Wikidata item at wikidata:Q110529247? Peaceray (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've never done that before, and so don't have an account yet. Would it be OK if I just wrote on here that you could copy please? My suggestion would be:

The practice, in humanitarian aid, to give more power, funding and resources to humanitarian aid organisations and people that are based in countries local to the emergency. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Going with the terse the practice of empowering, funding, and resourcing aid organisations local to an emergency. Peaceray (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's good. The difference between funding and resourcing is slim. I think (risk of original research) in reality, all resourcing is just funding, so you could tighten it further, if brevity was the priority. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Localisation (humanitarian practice)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The main issue I see with this article is criteria 1, 2, and 3.

• The article is not easy to read; it generally presumes a lot of familiarity with humanitarian aid that cannot be used as a prerequisite to understanding this article. The lead is not well-organized and seems haphazard, mirroring the content of the body.
• The sourcing is a bunch of think tank and non-profit sources connected to the subject, and the article also focuses on basically one summit and one report, all of which makes me question whether this is a notable subject outside of humanitarian work itself.
  • As an example of where this is a problem, the assertion that n 2021, the European Union Commissioner Janez Lenarčič was criticized for comments made in an interview with The New Humanitarian in which he suggested the lack of localisation was the result of a lack of capacity amongst local aid agencies is sourced to.... The New Humanitarian itself. If these are the only two major elements on localization (there's nothing on the overall history of the movement? No info more recent than 2021? Nothing older than 2016?) then it suggests it should be merged, at the least.
    • If it is notable, then it really needs a wider variety of sources. A cursory search of Google Books and Scholar pulls up a number of books and more scholarly articles to draw from that appear to be missing perspectives in this article.
• The article treats as gospel the ODI report, which leads to issues with neutrality (crit. 4) since the article itself is assuming the ODI's point of view tacitly.
• The article has circular links to itself (e.g. Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation) and generally seems closer to a term paper in some structure than an encyclopedia article.
• I don't think there's a valid fair use rationale for File:Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation book cover.jpg—the book cover is purely illustrative in a topic in which it is not the main focus and thus identifying the cover has limited utility per the non-free content criteria.

Given the systemic problems I see with the article at present, I am failing the nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)