Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sustainability/1

Sustainability

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This article was listed as "good article" 11 years ago. Since then it has become rather poor in quality, with a lot of content added indiscriminately, some as part of student assignments. I am currently working on improving the article. I have done a lot of work in culling and re-arranging, always trying to seek consensus on the talk page. This is work in progress. I think it will take a long time to get back to good article status and I won't be able to achieve it on my own. Not many other editors seem to be involved/interested at the moment. Right now, the article is definitely not good article standard and I think the label of "good article" is very misleading. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Since this reassessment was opened, the article has undergone significant work. @EMsmile: do you still think the article fails the GA criteria? If so, can you be more specific which of the criteria it fails. Femke (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel the reassessment needs doing either way as the new version of the article is very different from the previously assessed version. I also think it's not yet good enough to meet GA. Broadly speaking I think it still lacks content and a broader range of recent references. With regards to missing content, one way to consider this is to look at the Germany or French language version which both include some content that is not yet included in the English version. So that would refer to this criterion: "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic"; Illustrations could also be improved in the sense that more should be added (although this is not easy). This one is also not well met: "all inline citations are from reliable sources,". EMsmile (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to be even more specific.

• What citations are unreliable?
• At over 4,000 words, and with a wide set of subsection, I'm not too concerned about broadness. What main aspects are omitted? It's okay if some major facts are omitted (see Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article).

The content in the second half of the article is still quite weak. Sections on critique, barriers, pathways and responses from stakeholders need further fleshing out. EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I find "responses from stakeholders" a weird title of a section. It's definitely not a must for a GA. What major aspects are missing from these sections? Fleshing out is still a bit vague. Femke (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The section "responses from stakeholders" will attempt to make it all more tangible & practical by describing how different sectors of society are attempting to strive for (more) sustainability. The title might not be ideal, I'd be happy for suggestions for a better title of this section. EMsmile (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think it currently fails 1a, as the two first sentences are not sufficiently simple for a broad audience. It feels like a definition that can be found in a difficult academic text, not in an encyclopedia. Many people will not know what public discourse or semantic means.

I agree with you. A lot of the language used in this article is highly academic. This needs readability improvements. The first two sentences of the lead are not too bad now, I would say (Sustainability is a broad policy concept in the global public sphere and is commonly considered to have three "dimensions" or "pillars": the environmental, economic and social dimension. A closely related and overlapping concept is that of sustainable development. UNESCO formulated a distinction as follows:). If people don't know what a public discourse(sphere is they could click on the wikilink? I think it's somewhat important to mention public discourse/sphere here but if not, we could also omit that).EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Public sphere is equally difficult I believe, but more vague. The definition at Britannica is quite different. Is it only a policy concept? Or also an ethical concept? Femke (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Britannica definition is not very good on this topic, I would say. It's hard to check their facts as they don't supply references for their statements. This will be an example where Wikipedia is better (when the article is finished) than the Britannica page. The Britannica article doesn't put the 3 dimensions at the core of its definition and that's an omission, I would argue. I haven't seen it described as an ethical concept in any of the key publications. (putting this into google leads me to publications that focus on "environmental sustainability" and connect that with ethics). If someone finds "public sphere" difficult, doesn't it help that they can click through to the Wikipedia article on "public sphere"? But we could also omit it, I guess. EMsmile (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Clicking through is quite difficult, especially on mobile phone. I think more readers would just give up. I also doubt that sustainability is only a global thing. Femke (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it (first sentence of the lead) now to: "Sustainability is a broad policy and ethical concept at the global, national and individual consumer level, and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. It stresses intergenerational equity." What do you think? Britannica mentioned intergenerational ethics, so I felt inspired by that a bit. EMsmile (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: I've done a lot of work on this article in the last few months. I do think it's a lot better. But at the same time I don't think it should have GA status (neither should the version from October last year (see here) which was my starting point have had GA status). I won't necessarily have time to bring it back to GA status (I can try but can't promise anything). Therefore, I think this misleading quality label ought to be removed for now. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

On a second note, it seems like you've overlooked step 5 of the GAR instructions(?), as I don't see any notifications. That may explain the muted response to this GAR. Femke (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't do Step 5 yet, sorry (WP:GAR). I thought it gets listed automatically "somewhere" and "someone" would take notice. I am also not sure who these people should be: "Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer." Major contributing editors I can look up in the revision history so that's easy (although they seem to have mostly moved on from Wikipedia), relevant WikiProjects I am not totally sure (suggestions?), nominator - is that myself?, and who is the reviewer? Do I have to find a reviewer manually? EMsmile (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A question about procedure: wouldn't a GA article that had 50% or more of its content completely changed/replaced automatically fit a nomination for GA review? I mean its content is very very different to its content when the review was done 11 years ago? EMsmile (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The nominator is the one who initially nominated this article for GA. Of the three people involved in the original review, only @Granitethighs is still somewhat active. I would chose the three most relevant WikiProjects on the talk page (environment, economics, globalization?). It does get listed, in the big list article alerts section of Wikiprojects, but that is usually not sufficiently visible.

And no, just having different content isn't enough for triggering a GAR. The instruction state you should only nominate if we believe it fails the GA criteria. We're not a WP:bureaucracy, so if the new content is better, it doesn't necessarily needs another review. Femke (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now notified WikiProject Climate Change, WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Globalization of this process. Also written on the talk page of sustainability again. Have taken a look at the people involved back in 2010 but like you also pointed out, only User:Granitethighs is still active (the other two have a label "retired" on their user pages since 2016). You have already pinged that user. I don't think WikiProject economics would fit. Can't think of any other WikiProjects for now but will keep thinking. EMsmile (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about keeping GA label

I got to this page via the notification posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. As I say in my reply there that while "I'm open to examination of the article's GA status via reassessment, I disagree that the current GA status should be removed at once. I'd like to see more comments on that from members here, or from other people uninvolved in the topic."

To continue, I believe Femke's comments regarding the need for a Good Article Reassessment (GAR), in the currently hatted secttion just above are valid and I think the notification process for this reassessment is of importance, and so ask that the hat coding be removed. As a member of WP:Environment since 2015, I find the discussion of the article and the review process of interest, and at this point simply suggest the GA status be retained unless a substantial consensus to the contrary becomes evident. I thank all who have worked to improve the article. Jusdafax (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about improving the article

I'll try to delve further into the article, and list some point where I think the article is lacking. I expect it should be solvable within a reasonable time frame, but I'm now of the opinion the article does not meet the GA criteria

• Google NGram is cited, which feels too much like WP:OR. It also doesn't support the statemetn about popularity online as it's about books if I'm not mistaken.

Agreed, have removed the sentence. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the possible cultural and financial dimension could be included in the lede, which would help solve the issue that criticism gets too much attention.

Agreed, will work on it. I'd like the lead to be about 600 words in the end and a good summary of the article. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

600 words is a bit on the long side (I prefer 400-500 words, which helps to get to a medium-difficult readability, simple would imply 50-100 words per paragraph). Either way, the only thing that needs fixing for GA is the balance. Femke (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added some content to the lead about the other two dimensions (so far, only the environmental dimension had been explained in the lead). I started out by copying key sentences from the main body to the lead. Over time, we can massage them into a flowing text that summarises the article well. Eventually we will also need a summary paragraph for the section on approaches (formerly called "responses by stakeholders").

• Overall, the article seems to rely a bit too much on quotes. I think this is a topic where quotes are not completely avoidable, but it should be within reason. A few places with excessive quoting:
  • According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services (WACOSS): "Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems; structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life."[60][61]

Have shortened it to this but wasn't sure how to not put the last part of the sentence into quotation marks, unless I use some form of close paraphrasing: "Social sustainability is thought to lead to liveable communities which would be "equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life""? EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Others have pointed out that a "common agreement on the definition and operationalization of this concept is still missing"

I am not sure how to get around this quote. I could paraphrase with different wording but worry that it would be regarded as too close paraphrasing? EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The advantage of paraphrasing is that you can avoid the jargon 'operationalization'. I don't really know what that means. Femke (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • In 1972, the UN held its first conference on environmental issues. -> too many quotes

I agree. I was working on some of those sections with content expert Christian Berg. He likes to add quotes because he feels they are more accurate than paraphrasing. I will see what to do about those quotes though. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your rewording EMsmile is closer to GA friendly. I find Australian academics sometimes overly jargon their sentences. Computer science if full of this. TheKevlar 06:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 06:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what "The three dimensions are sometimes also referred to as "people, planet, and prosperity" as the preamble of the Agenda 2030 refers to it, adding peace and partnership in its preamble.[24]: 2  " means.

I have removed this sentence, it was a bit of WP:OR.EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• About the Economic dimension (this is the only section I have some expertise..):
  • This approach is underlined in the following quote from a popular textbook on environmental economics: "Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces -> the word popular seems OR.

I have replaced popular with well-known. That is a fact or would you say that is also too subjective? We just wanted to point out it's not just "any" textbook.EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the source support hte word well-known? I don't know the textbook, so I'd argue it's not a fact that can be put there without a source. Femke (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If Femkemilene hasn't heard of the book, I could see deleting both "popular" and "well-known." (So I did. See what you think.)PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the book is in its 4th edition - this makes it likely it is fairly successful. But perhaps it's unusual to quote like this from a textbook. I'll check with Christian Berg if we can find a better quote that is perhaps attributable to a famous person. EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a good solution now. Putting it in the paragraph works better than giving it prominence.PlanetCare (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The market-government dichotemy completely overlooks work by Elinor Ostrom, who has empirically shown self-organised governance is a third option.

This was very helpful. I disliked the assertion that people who value local resources need government intervention (I changed it to "participation") So I researched Elinor Ostrom's work and inserted a few sentences. See what you think: I'm not a content expert.PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

These are great additions. I've tried to improve this further in order to remove any bias which would say what we think is right or wrong. Surely the two approaches deserve to stand side by side as per WP:DUE? Unless we know for sure that one is wrong/outdated. The example from Elinor's work seems to only/mainly apply for communities in touch with nature / rural communities. Does her work also include examples of more urban-type societies? Are there any other opinions/approaches that we ought to add under this heading of "government participation/intervention" (or perhaps there's already a separate Wikipedia article on this that we need to link to).

EMsmile, you've improved it even further. Using Femkemilene's phrase "market-government dichotomy" there at the end might not be explained well enough for the average person.PlanetCare (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember, I'm not a reliable source myself :). When adding something not yet supported by the sources, can we agree to add a cn tag? I think disprove is too strong a word. THere are researchers out there unconvinced of her work. Furthermore, it seems to refer to the quote Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces, rather than the first sentence Many people believe that without government action, natural resources will be over-exploited and destroyed in the long-term, which is what she set out to rebut (well, more precisely, she rebutted that it's a choice between the market and the national government, and that local governance is sometimes possible and better than the other two). Femke (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Have changed it to: "pointed out that the choice should not be limited to either the market or the national government, and that local governance can be a suitable third option." and used the same ref about Elinor's work that was already there. I think this is better? No need for a cn tag in this instance? EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Pointed out is a WP:Words to watch (1b of GA criteria), and has a slightly non-neutral connotation still. It give credence to the idea. Described would be a more neutral word. Femke (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very good policy, thanks for the reminder. I have changed it now to "stated that" (was tossing up "said that" or "wrote that"). I felt that "described" didn't work so well here but don't feel strongly about it. EMsmile (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The text about externalities is written in Wikivoice. It's the majority framing, so this may be okay, but note that there is a lot of criticism of this frame / frame of government "intervention" (the word intervention implies that the government is external to the market, rather than shaping it). The word intervention can be replaced by the more neutral policy.

I added the "who pays for disposal of packaging" as an example to clarify what "externalities" are. I think the example is needed, and welcome other suggestions if there's a better way of explaining "externalities."PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I like your addition, makes it a lot clearer. EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit surprised to see Kate Raworth grouped under environmental economics. Are you aware not all economics applied to the environment is environmental economics. Environmental economics is the neoclassical (largest) branch of economics about the environment (simplified explation, but I don't think Kate Raworth is part of that. From having read her work, I think she's an ecological economist.

I've changed the section heading from "environmental economics" to "tools". That's better, I think? EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • "due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive" -> feels too much like it's said in Wikivoice, should be more clearly attributed

I completely agree. Citation needed, or is it just an exaggeration that doesn't belong in here at all?PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reworded this but the "self-destructive" wording is taken straight from the reference provided so I think it makes sense to keep it but to put it into quotation marks to show that it's an opinion. This reference was recommended by Christian Berg. I think it's a suitable ref for this kind of statement about criticism of sustainability. New sentence reads: "Another criticism is that the paradigm of sustainability is no longer suitable as a guide (or "road map") for transformation due to the fact that our societies are "socially and ecologically self-destructive consumer societies"." EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The doughnut economics template used for Planet Earth as a whole, indicating errors in red. -> "errors" is the wrong word here.
• Prose nitpicking: The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension (also called "pillar" or "aspect") of the three dimensions commonly used to characterize sustainability -> long sentence, no need to repeat that the point about pillars and aspects. Femke (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will change that now. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, these are excellent points and will help us to eventually get back to GA status! Just one clarification question: when you say "is written in Wikivoice" then this is a good thing, right? We are supposed to write in Wikivoice or did I misunderstand? I checked here WP:Wikivoice, it's all about neutrality and how facts or opinions are presented. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we collect further opinions about its current GA status or can we conclude today that the current GA label should be removed straight away? I support removing it as I find it misleading to tell our readers that this article meets GA status. It might take us some weeks/months to bring it back to GA status. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Usually, we want to write as much as possible in our own voice (wikivoice). In the case a significant part of sources disagree with a framing, that's not quite possible. I doubt it's appropriate to use the words "government intervention" in Wikivoice here, as intervention has a mildly negative connotation, and is mostly used by neoclassical economists. Other economic traditions would not use it much. All traditions are fine with the more neutrally-worded 'policy'.

agreed about the "mildly negative" observation. How about "participation"?PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor will determine consensus here. When an article is actively worked on and not too far from GA quality, they likely won't close the discussion. I think we might as well 'save' the star here, rather than opening a second process later. Femke (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• The see also section is too long; see WP:See also. Generally, terms linked in the text should not be linked again in the see also section. Femke (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I will clean it up. I will also cross reference to see if they are included in Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability before deleting TheKevlar 06:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 06:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the extra terms from the See also list. I checked that they were in Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability (some of them were not, so I added them). I wonder if it's a bit of a duplication to have Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability and the template {{sustainability}} Do we need all three? Is anyone keeping them updated (I doubt it)? EMsmile (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about the first paragraph of the lead

I've changed the first sentence of the lead once more. Now it is "Sustainability is a normative concept that stresses intergenerational equity and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension." I am aware that the general public might not understand what a "normative concept" is. I have wikilinked it but is there a simpler way of saying it? Christian Berg pointed out to me that this is more about a normative concept than an ethical one. He also felt the intergenerational aspect was key and should be in the first sentence. Previously, the first two sentences were like this: Sustainability is a broad policy and ethical concept that is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. It stresses intergenerational equity. EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont quite know what it means, so it's difficult to come up with alternative wording. I think it fails WP:EXPLAINLEAD. The source you gave to support this statement does not contain the words normative/norm. What part of the source support this new definition? That may give us clues how to reformulate. Femke (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on normativity is pretty good. It explains: "Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes." The Britannica article mentions normative like this (last sentence) "For their part, political analysts have focused on the ideological and normative implications of sustainability". The book by Christian Berg which is cited several times explains it in more detail, e.g. "sustainability is, obviously, a normative concept" on page 26. The book is behind a paywall (haven't checked how much of it is on Google books). I have the pdf file here so it's easy for me to look it up there. I think I can add the Berg reference to the end of the first sentence as it would be a source for the normative statement (?). I am not sure if the term "normative" needs further paraphrasing or if it's OK like this. Some terms readers might have to look up if needed, or not? Either way, it describes the character of sustainability more precisely than "global policy and ethical concept", I would say (?). EMsmile (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, but please make sure you cite properly when you change text. I spend a lot of time checking citations, and too often they do not support new text you add. I still find the sentence extremely vague: it does not define sustainability, it just says it's a concept. Femke (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Yes, sustainability is vague and fuzzy. All the literature that I have read so far gives no simple definition of sustainability. Explaining that it's a normative concept is helpful, I think. I have searched more for good articles to cite about the aspect of "normative concept" and have added a paragraph accordingly in the main text now. I can send you the pdf file of the book of Christian Berg if you like so you can dive deeper into it. I also found this publication by Lisa Butler Harrington useful (I'll contact her too and encourage her to take a look at this Wikipedia article): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309619897_Sustainability_Theory_and_Conceptual_Considerations_A_Review_of_Key_Ideas_for_Sustainability_and_the_Rural_Context . EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I am not saying the first sentence of the lead is perfect as it is. But right now, I can't think of a better way to describe it. Looking at MOS:FIRST I think it's not too bad: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ben Purvis just sent me this e-mail about not defining sustainability: "I think reference to sustainability as a buzzword covers the vagueness in meaning. Perhaps there is space in this section to also refer to the numerous unsuccessful attempts to develop a definitive definition of sustainability. Ramsey (2015) is a good reference here, who I see states in the abstract that sustainability is "vague and contested... but not meaningless". EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist The article is poorly organised, making it hard to read. It is a mess of headers, especially towards the end where single headers are given to short sentence concepts (like Buzzword, Financial sustainability, Individuals, Awards etc). Many of these should not exisit as headers while others should be expanded upon. This underlies the major issue with the article in that it struggles to present information coherently. I feel a lot of work is needed to get this up to Good Standard. Aircorn (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Hi User:Aircorn. I've done a bit of work on the headers in the meantime. I don't think they are "a mess" anymore. It's true that some sections are still a bit too short. I would not delete them though; they serve as reminders that more work is needed. For example, the section on "barriers" was rather short (I was still busy expanding it). I have expanded that section now. Overall, I don't find short sections overly problematic. At least this way, content can easily be accessed from the table of content. But if you have proposals for a better structure or for merging some sections together, please propose? What did you mean by "it struggles to present information coherently" and what would have to be done to improve on that? (note: I was the original proposer of delisting it; however, since having done more work on it I am contemplating putting in the extra mile to bring it back to GA standard - with the help of anyone who has time to comment and to suggest specific improvements). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of the headers were necessary. Their brevity points to broadness concerns, especially as you say, more work is needed. When I looked at it the article felt like one still being developed rather than one ready to run a GAN, let alone be saved as one. Still feel there are concepts that can be expanded on (like financial stability) and not sure buzzwords needs its own subheading. It really depends on what source there are and the pertinent information you can find.

As to structure I feel it can be better organised. I am not against overview as a heading, but would arrange it differently. Easier to just give an example of how I would do it [1]. By the same token I think there would be a better way to arrange the Three Pillars. When you get to sub-sub headings (visually it can make it hard to figure out which one is applying to which previous header) you might want to look to bump things up a bit. Not sure how to do that though so maybe what you have done is the best way.

I had another look over it and it has improved (thanks for your work). I understand it is a difficult concept but maybe some writing can be simplified. For example Originally, "sustainability" meant making only such use of natural, renewable resources that people could continue to rely on their yields in the long term. could be "Originally, "sustainability" meant only using natural or renewable resources that would continue to provide yield in the long term." That's not even a very technical one, just the first I saw.

It uses for example, eg, i.e a lot. This is often fine and necessary in an article like this, but sometimes it can be written better as it can sound quite casual. Also the examples could be expanded upon. For example e.g. the Māori of New Zealand under ancient cultures (which as a New Zealander is not how I would describe them - the culture is still very much current) does not actually provide an example of how they actually restricted the use of natural resources.

I have no doubt in your ability to bring it up to scratch, but I think in hindsight you would have been better just working on it without opening this GAR as it is not usually a good place to find willing editors to help or review unfortunately. I still think it would be better to delist it and then run a proper GAN when you feel it is ready, especially as this has already been open for nearly 5 months. Aircorn (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great feedback! I'll work on your suggestions today. My aim is to improve this article and to draw in other editors who could help with the reviewing. If you think this is easier to achieve with a WP:GAN than a WP:GAR then this is important feedback. I didn't realise the two processes were rather separate from each other. I am pinging Femkemilene as they were originally against delisting - what are your thoughts about it now? Continue with the delisting process or continue with improving and then trying for WP:GAN? I don't mind either way; whichever method carries the most promise to get a better article in the end. EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

While GAN can be hit or miss I think it is more likely to give you better feedback than here. GAN works best I find when a well polished article is submitted and a reviewer can just focus on the final touchups or the little things we all invariably miss. Reviewing an article that needs a lot of work is always difficult as it is going to change quite a bit during the review so in effect needs multiple reviews. Aircorn (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the specific comments that you raised, Aircorn. In particular I've changed the structure a bit. Rather than starting with the "old usage" and then shifting to "current usage", I have moved the old usage / history part to the very end of the article as I think it would detract from the main points (and makes it also less "academic" this way - coming straight to the point what sustainability is NOW). I've take out some of the "e.g." and reduced the number of times that I am using "for example". I'll also try to improve readability over time, using the Hemmingway App. EMsmile (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist for being too academic. I gave up at the first sentence after clicking "normative concept" and still not understanding what "normative concept" means. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've argued straight from the start that the article should be delisted (despite having done a ton of work on it myself in the last months). However, I find your statement a bit harsh, User:Chidgk1. Not knowing the meaning of "normative concept" should not be sufficient to say the article is not GA. OK, it's a term that is not used in every day practice. But it's not THAT difficult a word. I mean I could give plenty of articles that have a specific term in the first sentence that is not known by everyone. What if it said "ethical concept" and then someone saying "I don't know what ethical concept means?". Firstly, people can click through on "normative", it has a Wikilink. Secondly, they can read the rest of the article where "normative" is explained in several instances. If you want, we can include exactly that same information also in the first sentence. I hadn't done it so far as I didn't want the first sentence to be too long. But if you want, we can write it like this: "sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure (describing what human society regards as good or desirable)" or "sustainability is a normative concept (this means sustainability is connected to "what we see as desirable")". Apart from this first sentence, please do point out what other content you find too academic. I am sure we can find alternative wording in most cases if we put our mind to it. Note I recently worked on the related article planetary boundaries. That one also suffered (and still does) from being quite academic. But it's usually not too hard to rework it. Usually it's easier to do if more people work on it, rather than just one person (it's hard to see the forest for the trees after a while when one works on an article mostly alone).EMsmile (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile Sorry if that was harsh - I was in a bit of a rush so read and wrote quickly. This kind of broad concept article would be very difficult for me to edit I think, especially the first sentence and lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Readability and other aspects

I'll further explain why think the lead is significantly too difficult. We tend to overestimate how much other people know of things we care about. WP:ONEDOWN gives the tip how to deal with that bias, by writing for a group slightly younger than those that would typically study the topic. I think sustainability is typically covered when students are about 16 or 17, so we should aim to write for 15 years olds.

The first sentence has three words that this group would not understand:

• normative (which I consider a word even a typical graduate might not understand)
• intergenerational (maybe half of this group will be able to guess)
• Equity (less than half would know this)

I do not know enough about that topic to boldly give a new definition in the article. What about something like this:

Sustainability is a concept that describes how resources should be fairly divided between generations. It is commonly described as having three dimensions (or pillars): the environment, the economy and the social dimension.

The work should indicates that it is a normative process I believe. It can also be described more explicitly like: Sustainability is the ability to support a process continuously over time. As such, it deals with fairness between generations. It is commonly described as having three dimensions (or pillars): the environment, the economy and the social dimension. Sustainability is a normative concept, which means it is connected to "what we see as desirable"

Further in the lead there are some additional phrases that I believe need to be simplified:

• planetary boundaries (not sure if it needs to be included)
• eco-economic decoupling (the sentence immediately afterwards seems describes this without the jargon)
• externalities (again remember that a minority of economists rejects this concept, and another minority of economists believe externalities should be addressed by local governance, rather than governments)
• borne (I imagine the median age of people learning this word is about 18)
• sobered (difficult word. It also doesn't quite feel like it belongs in an encyclopedic article, a bit too subjective I guess, can't quite put my finger on it)

The difficulty of an article is not only about jargon, but also about the difficulty of the non-jargon text. A crude measure of this difficulty is a readability score, such as https://readabilityofwikipedia.com/check/sustainability. This tool gives the article readability of 28, which is comparable to scientific articles (!). Web content with an audience like this article is typically expected to have a readability score of around 60. My experience with trying to simplify climate change, is that this is very hard work (we managed to climb up five points), but the article got significantly better.

I'm okay with delisting now: I now think it requires quite a bit of work to make the prose clear, to rely less on quotes in the body of the article, and see if we can expand/merge the one sentence paragraphs. EMSmile, once you're happy with your work, it might be worthwhile to sign the article up to WP:GOCE.

I think the description of sustainability of the buzzword fits under the previous section title (unclear goals). Femke (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Femkemilene thanks for this detailed feedback. I think I have now been able to address many of the items you have listed (I've also explained in my edit summaries what I changed and how). I do feel that "normative concept" is key and needs to stay in the first sentence but I've tried to make it easier to understand. It is tempting to overly simplify sustainability but I would find it dangerous to only zone in on the environmental aspect which this kind of first sentence would do: "Sustainability is a concept that describes how resources should be fairly divided between generations". I am planning to work on readability improvements from here on as well (I like using the Hemmingway App for that). (by the way, I don't think that aiming for 15 year olds is suitable for this kind of topic. Yes, the buzzword of sustainability if used by any child, teenager, PR companies and so forth. But the actual concept of sustainability is a bit complex, therefore our target readership might be young adults (but age is anyway a bit irrelevant; I suppose education level is probably more important). But yes, if we can make it understandable to anyone, while still being scientifically correct, that would be ideal. EMsmile (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving the history to the end of the article makes the article even more difficult. The historical meaning is something that most people can understand. The modern meaning is a generalisation of that historical meaning, and is difficult to understand even if you have explained the historical meaning first.

I agree there are aspects of sustainability that are unsuitable for 15 year olds. Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, this type of information is welcome to be added to the body of the article instead. I think aiming for a 17-year audience for the body (which an occasional phrase more suitable for undergraduates) would be reasonable. The fact remains that this article is read by wide audience. Disregarding what I estimate is around 30% of our readership would in my eyes constitute inadvertent discrimination based on education/age.

A small step in the right direction in terms of making it "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", but we need to go much further.

• You included the word goal in the first without removing the synonymous jargon of normative concept (which signals to our non-academic readers that they should shy away from this article). The first sentence is 31 words, which exceeds the 25 adviced maximum for the longest sentences is general texts.
• There is no definition of sustainability, only abstract associations.
• The notion of fairness between generations (which I believe is the core of the definition), has disappeared. Would this work as first sentence: Sustainability is a societal goal of fairness between generations?
• Planetary boundaries are still namedropped rather than put in context.
• You still have eco-economic decoupling (that adjective is usually dropped even in academic texts).

A further critique is "the realities of the Anthropocene" feels slightly POV: the anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch, not yet generally accepted.

One further option after this GAR is to list the article for WP:peer review once you've worked on it a bit more. Maybe ask a few of our pop-culture/sports editors to get a good feeling of how much simpler the article should be (you really have to ask for reviewers at peer review yourself, and people are more likely to say yes if you've done some reviewing yourself). Femke (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve done more work on this now, along the lines that you proposed. I’ve also used the Hemmingway App to give me some ideas for improving readability but haven’t found it too inspiring so far as all sentences are deemed as too difficult currently… So it’s not an easy fix. Some specific comments:

• I do agree with almost everything you said. However, you said again “There is no definition of sustainability, only abstract associations.”. I have addressed this criticism of yours already elsewhere on the talk page and also in the article itself: there is no hard and fast definition of sustainability. It is not up to us to invent one here now for this Wikipedia article if it doesn’t exist in the literature. All the key literature that I have used for this article stresses that there is no single definition of sustainability. It’s a normative concept, a utopian ideal etc.
• For the same reason, I don’t think this would be a suitable first sentence “Sustainability is a societal goal of fairness between generations”. This would not be backed up by references. The aspect of “future generations” or “notion of fairness” might well be important for the environmental sustainability but is of lesser importance for the economic and social dimensions which refer to the here and now. So I don’t think it’s required in the first sentence or in the lead (or is it more relevant for the article on sustainable development?)
• Also, the “history” section is in my opinion not crucial for understanding the concept. In fact, it is more distracting/confusing than anything because the usage of the term has changed a lot. Original usage was just about the environmental aspect; then the 3-pillars model was developed. So now it’s all different. For that reason, the historical meaning also does not need to be explained in the lead because it is not all that relevant to the current meaning. I felt that people who wanted to know could access it through the table of content, wherever it’s placed in the article. But I have moved it back towards the front now, albeit under a different heading to make it clearer that it’s about env sustainability only.
• Planetary boundaries is a key concept within env sust, so I thought it was worth mentioning it in the lead? It’s not name dropping, it’s pointing people to relevant sub-topics (?).
• I don’t understand what you meant with “You still have eco-economic decoupling (that adjective is usually dropped even in academic texts).”. I’ve taken it out of the lead now but still linked to the Wikipedia article called Eco-economic decoupling. Is there something wrong with that article’s title, should it be renamed?
• Regarding peer review that is a good idea. Are we at a stage now where the only main to-do remaining is to work on readability improvements? I think there might still be content missing here and there. I’ve already cited a lot from the book by Christian Berg which I’ve found excellent (sadly, behind a paywall). More could be added from his book or other important publications, especially in the last third of the Wikipedia article. EMsmile (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Time for closure?

The discussion has been open for quite some time. Despite large improvements, the article has some way to go still to meet the GA criteria. Femke (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if EMsmile agrees one of us could probably close it. This would allow them to move on with improving it without the GAR hanging over it. Aircorn (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please. Please go ahead and close and delist, I am fine with that. I'll try to work on the other points raised over the coming days but I can't guarantee that I'll get it back to GA status all that quickly. So much better to delist at this stage. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a housekeeping edit: the article was delisted from GA status on 7 May 2022. EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)