The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2018 [1].

---

Political Animals and Animal Politics[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Animals and Animal Politics is a 2014 book about animals in political theory. According to one of the leading names in the subdiscipline, it was the first ever edited collection on the topic (at least two others have been published since), and the first book-length effort to map the shape of the field. Whether it is successful in that regard or not, it's going to retain a place in the bibliographies of scholars of "animal politics" (myself included!) for its trailblazing nature. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PlanespotterA320[edit]

While certainly a topic worthy of a featured article, there are some areas in need of improvement. For example, the sections ""Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944", Per-Anders Svärd" and ""The Rights of Nature: Theory and Practice", Mihnea Tanasescu" ought to be re-written to reduce bias among other areas.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look; could you expand on the bias that you're seeing? I'm of course keen to make sure that the article is written from the NPOV, but I'm not sure I understand the concern! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Great work, Josh; glad to see that you've brought this to FAC.

• "edited collection published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited " - we end up with "edited" being used twice in quick succession. I'm not totally sure of how to get around this but it looks a tad clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me think on this one. I don't really want to say just "collection" or "volume" as I think some readers will already be puzzled by the phrase "edited collection". I'm open to suggestions... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "by the green political theorists Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg." - I would give the nationalities of the two editors here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. It's perhaps a little clunky for my tastes, but I'll see what other reviewers think.
• "The volume addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy (as opposed to moral philosophy), and was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, as well as the first book-length attempt to explore the limits of the literature." I think that this sentence might be improved by being carved in two, or at least reworded in some way. The current "and was... as well as" is a tad clunky. How about "The volume addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy, as opposed to moral philosophy. It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic and the first book-length attempt to explore the limits of the literature." I'm also not totally sure what is meant by "the limits of the literature" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good suggestion. I've quoted Garner directly (with a reference); he uses the word "contours". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Per-Anders Svärd and Mihnea Tanasescu." - dear lord, where is the Oxford comma! (A personal preference of mine, admittedly, but one you might like to consider). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, done. I'm a reluctant and recent convert. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• arose from a workshop Wissenburg and Schlosberg" - I'd stick a "that" in after "workshop". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• " and illustrations of the party's public reception." - I think that a word other than "illustrations" might be better here given the word's multiple meanings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone with "explorations". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hooley, similarly, argued" - we can cut the number of pauses here by switching to "Similarly, Hooley argued". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "to the literature in animals and politics" - "to the literature on animals and politics"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. Happy to support this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Casliber[edit]

Taking a look now....

It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, and the first book-length attempt to explore the "contours" of the literature. - agree with preceding reviewer that (a) slightly repetitive, but (b) can't think of a way around without repeating.... - also, I think we can use a word for "contours" without quotation marks - "limits/boundaries" for contours, or alternately "explore breadth and boundaries" of literature - or somesuch.

It was the first edited collection on the topic (there had previously been monographs!) but it was the first book to explore the literature as a whole. This might be a technical distinction, but it's an important one, as it identifies two ways in which this was "the first" - and it's as "the first" that this book is, I think, most significant. I like "breadth and boundaries", though, so I've gone with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

between 10–15 April 2012 hmm, can have "over 10–15 April 2012" or " between 10 and 15 April 2012" or "from/to" etc.

Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Production and release section needs some more context (or a background section) - you mention the occupations of the two editors in the lead but not in the body (unless I am missing something?). I don't get a sense of why/how these people are important/instrumental in this - it needs something about their backgrounds (not much but a bit) at the beginning of the section.

This is tricky. The reality is that the editors are really outsiders to the literature; that's something that Garner points towards in his review (and I put his comments front-and-centre in the academic reception section). I tried to include a little background by talking about what the political turn is all about, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - in an ideal world, we'd have some more to shoehorn at the front, but as is, it'd be odd to move Garner's comments up to background. So this looks the best way at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These aims are the analysis of three key "innovations" that the editors identify in the book's introduction. - can we come up with another way of saying without quotes?

Done, but I have added "putative" to retain a NPOV. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that edit got saved...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination.... - "appropriately" suggests that the human primacy is correct and...ummm...undermines his position...?

"Arias-Maldonado argues that [x] and that, instead, human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination." I'm just reporting what he says! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is good overall. No other obvious fixes I can see. In reading it, it is only with the chapter summaries (which are a fair way through the article) that we get any idea of specific bits in the book (as there are none in the lead at all). I wonder if some notable segments from the book in the lead might give a better impression (e.g. the polar bear advocacy comments come to mind). I just wonder if there needs to be a bit more concrete stuff for a lay reader to get more of a picture about what it's all about....

Yes, that's a good thought. I have added a sentence to the lead, based on the things that Bendik-Keymer says in his review, and detailed what the three sections concern. Hopefully that'll be a nice way to show what the book actually contains. I'm reluctant to pick out the contents of particular chapters in the lead, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas, for taking the time to look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -an intriguing area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - sources and licenses look good, but this[2] image could need a standard description template on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done that - thanks for taking a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed this article for GAN, and was impressed. On rereading it, I am reimpressed. A few minor points on drafting:

• Lead
  • Opening sentence – is there any reason to mention the editors' nationalities?
    • I've trimmed it. I agree it's a little much for the first sentence, and is provided further down. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para –an unnecessary 's' in 'focused' in one line but then not in the next, or later occurrences.
    • Well spotted; fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Production and release
  • Third para – WP:DATED – the volumes may not be available forever, and you can easily avoid the problem by saying that they "were published as xxx" rather than "are available as xxx".
    • Great suggestion. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Academic reception
  • "Milburn felt" – I imagine – correct me if I am wrong – that Milburn's conclusion was based on something more intellectually rigorous than mere feeling? I'm sure he thought, or considered or even took the view that.
    • Here's the quote: "These chapters, along with the introduction, establish the volume well." I've gone with "thought". (A related aside: I rather dislike the way that "asserted" is often used on Wikipedia. To claim that someone asserted y, to me, is something of a snub, as it suggests that it is claimed without support.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur, and will expatiate on your talk page rather than clutter up this review page. Tim riley talk 12:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes
  • Note 5 – perhaps unnecessarily convoluted? Instead of "At the time of the reviews' respective publications…", possibly just "When their reviews were published…"? But I don't press the point.
    • Tweaked, but kept "respective". The trouble is that not all reviews were published at the same time. I wasn't at QUB when Bendik-Keymer's review was published, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my only quibbles. The article is very readable, even by the layest of laymen (i.e. me). I commend the sensible and helpful structure of the article; the sourcing appears to be as wide as possible; and the highly technical nature of the topic is explained with as many plain words and as little jargon as possible. A few terms that seem to me everyday ones have been blue-linked, but JM and I have had this discussion before, and having mentioned the point again I leave it at that. Happy to add my support for the promotion of this fine article to FA. – Tim riley talk 10:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kind words and support. For anyone following the conversation: I bluelink some relatively common words because they are technical terms in the parlance of political philosophy, though I'm certainly happy to explore changes if they are suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, would you be able to source review the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Tim riley talk 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now done: see below. Tim riley talk 20:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Prose check, lead and a few random checks further down:

• Pity "edited" and sibling forms appear so densely at the top. I can't see how to avoid it. You've no doubt thought about it too.
  • Agreed; I am not sure it's avoidable. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "The work addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy, as opposed to moral philosophy." The comma introduces an ambiguity: the unwanted meaning of "as opposed to the emergence of moral philosophy" is a possibility.
  • I've removed the comma. I don't really like the flow of it without one, but agree with you that it removes the ambiguity. Josh Milburn (talk)/~
• ", respectively concerning institutional change for animals; the relationship between animal ethics and ecologism; and real-world laws made for the benefit of animals." My eyes balked at the semicolons. There are no internal commas in the listed items, so why not just commas?
  • Sure, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "In part" ... "Parts ...".
  • Adjusted. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Reviewers identified the contributions from ...". I first thought it meant "Peer-reviewers ...". But no, it's published reviews identified ... .
  • I don't like "published reviews identified": reviews don't identify anything, the reviewers do. I could change it commentators, if you prefer? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure you need "also". And can you check the other appearance of that urchin?
  • Removed both. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• " ... of, the ...". Can you get away without that comma? I don't use it myself, to avoid the bump bump. Up to you.
  • I don't think it can be removed, as "or sufficiently engage with the work of" is a parenthetical clause. Maybe our spoken English is a little different, but I'd definitely have a "bump bump" (as you put it!) if I said the sentence aloud. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "such as Robert Garner, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Alasdair Cochrane, Kimberly Smith or Siobhan O'Sullivan." This list seems a bit messy. You're linking Donaldson and Kymlicka as co-authors, I guess. But why no serial comma before the final "or"? And why not "and" instead, in English? Are we being asked to consider these authors as either/or? Or is it just an unmarked list on a level field?
  • It's an inclusive or! I've added a serial comma, though. (And you're right about Donaldson and Kymlicka; the two basically come as a pair in this literature.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Wissenburg's chapter was identified as the one which engaged most directly with this literature; his approach, however, was a negative one." To avoid the wa wa, why not "the one that", rather than "the one which"? Many styleguides, including Chicago (with good explicit reasoning), recommend "that" be used where possible. The "however" logic: engaging and being negative are abnormal? And I'm not a fan of "however-comma" where it can be a good old plain "but. Here, though, you might join up the propositions more smoothly, perhaps without the semi.
  • Definitely agree with that instead of which. (An aside: This is something I've become much more aware of in my writing since this article was first written.) Happy enough with but. (And I do think engaging but being negative are unusual; the thought is approaching, without quite reaching, something like: "Only one actually engages with the thing the book's meant to be about, but that's a critical approach!") Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "On the workshop's second day" – do you need "workshop's"?
  • Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "The film premiered on 28 October 2012, during a gathering to celebrate the party's 10th anniversary, and has since been made available in numerous languages." Kill the first comma, to make the second one more effective and the sentence less bumpy?
  • I like the first comma, but I agree with you about the bumpiness. I've split the sentence instead. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Political Animals and Animal Politics was published in 2014 by Palgrave Macmillan; it is part of the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, which is edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn." Why not: "Political Animals and Animal Politics was published in 2014 as part of the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn."
  • Ambiguity: I want to stress that it's the series that's edited by Lizey and Cohn, not the book (which is the subject of the first clause). Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could move the comma to be after "2014". I don't mind. Tony (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS breach: no hyphen after an -ly adverb.
  • Well-spotted. (Or should that be wellly spotted?) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• posit ... English can be ugly, can't it. Finding enough projection verbs is often a problem I face too. "suggest"? Maybe not strong enough for your purpose, though.
  • Confession: I like posit, and it is fairly common in philosophical writing. Suggest is, I agree, not strong enough. I've changed one instance of positing to endorsing, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "For the purposes of his contribution, Wissenburg takes many standard contentions in animal ethics for granted. However, he challenges mainstream animal ethicists' tendency to adopt the language of liberalism, which he suggests misconstrues nonhuman animals as individuals and posits false dichotomies about their status." What about dumping the opening phrase, and starting with: "Wissenburg takes many standard contentions in animal ethics for granted; but he challenges mainstream animal ethicists' tendency to adopt the language of liberalism, which he suggests misconstrues nonhuman animals as individuals and assumes false dichotomies about their status."
  • I'm reluctant, because, as far as I know, Wissenburg doesn't take these things for granted; as I recall, he explicitly plays a "Let's assume for the sake of argument that..." move, which is very common in philosophical writing. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the rest. This is an excellent, FA-standard nomination! Thank you. Tony (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking a look and for your kind words. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Following the precepts of the helpful guide for source reviewers, I have checked the online sources and looked at the available material about the printed sources. All seem to me authoritative, relevant and reliable. The presentation is consistent, as far as I can see, but for the single exception that three sources have been "accessed on" and three "retrieved". but with that one pettifogging reservation I give the sources the thumbs-up.

PS: I think I ought to have been warned that doing this source review would turn me into Mad Margaret in Ruddigore, fixated on the word "Basingstoke": it occurs 14 times in the sources, but I digress. – Tim riley talk 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the retrieved/accessed issue- well-spotted! As for Basingstoke: It's one I've typed out more than I ever imagined I would. Lanham, MD is another! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.