# Talk:The Anthropocene Reviewed

I was taken a bit back to see the episode list deleted, as I thought it was useful content. I would direct fellow editors to the host's other podcast, Dear Hank & John, which has a much more voluminous (and arguably less useful) episode list. Radagast (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Today an anonymous user started an even more verbose version of an episode list (itemizing individual topics and their ratings). That is definitely far too involved a format, but I continue to advocate for my simpler design (see here). Radagast (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I added my own version. I think this is well in line with episode lists found across Wikipedia for various podcasts. The star ratings are compact and there is not excessive information in my opinion. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, apologies for not checking in here first, I didn't notice the episode list had already come up as an issue. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It feels like this article is about ready to be nominated as a good article. Any objections to my doing so? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No objections here! Thanks for the tidying up you did, and I'm excited to see you say it is ready for that. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cerebral726 I was coming in expecting to have to do pretty substantial work (as book articles tend to be pretty under developed) and instead found that you and Radagast had built a nice article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
It helps that it was about the podcast for a while before the book; good bones to build on! Radagast (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Anthropocene Reviewed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


### Primary sources
I note that you have cited the WP:PRIMARY author John Green in refs #1, #2, #5, #10, #13, #14, #22, #23, #38, #39; and #36 looks to be associated with him. Ideally we'd mark these in a separate reflist (|group=G or whatever) as primary, i.e. non-independent.
I have removed 1 - it's sourced in the body so it doesn't need to be in the infobox. 2, 14 are sourcing direct quotations. The use of 5, 10, 22, 23, 38, 39, 40 feel allowed in terms of statements of fact rather than analysis/interpretation and in the spirit of WP:ABOUTSELF. I have shortened what 13 is sourcing. In terms of the group I'm not familiar with this being done at other GAs for subjects similar to this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we must just deal with it intelligently. Your reply already indicates a thought-out response.
However, many of these (sources just listed) seem to be the only sources for "Reviews", i.e. works by Green, so they are effectively uncited by any reliable independent source. Why do you feel these do not need to be cited further?
The review tables had previous discussion on the talk page, which preceded my involvement with the article, and this is what reached consensus. I would suggest that the table summaries are helpful to our users in the same way that elimination tables are generally appropriate in reality TV shows, to pick something which I know has recent RfC support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Helpfulness and reliability aren't the same thing. We can use primary materials to inform, but those don't do anything to establish notability. The article thus has far fewer RS than meets the eye, which is why I suggested a separate primary group. We can live without it, at the price of having to be far more suspicious about notability overall.
Refs #9 The Past ... and #10 The Anthropocene Reviewed, Reviewed should state that they are by John Green himself, despite appearances. These are quite confusing as they look at first blush as if they are contributing to notability, which they are not. Marking them as part of a primary group (group=G, as above) would clarify the matter.
I would suggest the podcast itself is a production and giving sole credit to Green for 10 diminishes the role of the producer and other contributors to the final product. I think the argument could be better made for 9 but the same idea does apply as the animation is a crucial element to the telling in a visual medium. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, my concern was that we were over-relying on Green. I accept this is perhaps not full-fat primary here. That doesn't mean that independent sourcing wouldn't be good.


### "Generally unreliable" sources
There are several citations to Twitter, to Youtube, and to Tumblr, all of which are considered "generally unreliable" per WP:GUNREL. Many editors take that to mean the sources must never be used. I'm willing to consider them, but that means that each such source has to be justified on other grounds, e.g. it was David Attenborough speaking and we can consider him worth reporting. Specifically, why do you believe that refs
#9, Kurzgesagt - in a Nutshell
#12, All Complexly Shows
Unfortunately, despite several reliable sources discussing the beginning of the partnership between Complexly and WNYC, this is the closest I could find to an official statement saying that the partnership had ended. It may also constitute some light WP:SYNTH since we are saying Complexly ended its relationship with WNYC -> The Anthropocene Reviewed is part of Complexly -> The Anthropocene Reviewed ended its relationship with WNYC. I removed the relevant part for now, until I can (hopefully) find any sort of RS on it. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
#35, Project for Awesome
#37, Mug Release
The Project for Awesome and Mug Release sources are only used to cite the dates that products (an exclusive podcast episode for donators to the Project for Awesome and a mug with a review) were released. The company/organization advertising when their products were available through socials seems like an appropriate use of the sources. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
meet the standard of WP:RS?


### Wikilinks in 'Reviews' titles
Nearly all the review titles are wikilinked to one or several Wikipedia articles, which however are not about the podcasts or reviews, but are simply the topics of the review (nothing to do with John Green's work). The meaning of a link from a title is that there is a (main) article about the title, e.g. a link to Macbeth is a link to Shakespeare's play; a link here to "Plague" ought to be a link to John Green's "Plague" podcast, but is not. I'm afraid we should therefore unlink all of these as misleading, we do not wikilink within titles.
I would argue in this situation that the importance of keeping Wikipedia an interlinked encyclopedia trumps what I would consider an unlikely possibility that a reader would click on the word and be surprised Plague brought them to information on the Bubonic Plague. A lot of the subjects of the reviews are somewhat obscure, and leaving them linked is what I would expect to see if I was coming to the article for the first time. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### 'Podcast'
There are plenty of reliable sources here to establish the subject's notability. These references are in the main correctly formatted. However the 'Podcast' section is largely cited to Green himself, or to interviews with him; without a "Reception" section for the podcast, as there is for the book, it's not clear how notable this half of TAR actually is. Would it be possible to provide and cite independent comments about the podcast?
What is the actual premise of The Anthropocene Reviewed, or to put it another way, what does Green do in the podcasts, and why is anybody interested? The section tells us what he did on such a date, but there's nothing that explains why anybody would bother to listen, let alone read an encyclopedia article about it. Ok, he and his brother thought of writing about geese; but why do we care if we're not members of the Wildfowl Trust? Something seems to be missing from the article to connect the small details with the bigger picture.
I worked to address both of these concerns with my recent additions to the Podcast section, including adding a couple extra sources and explaining the point/content of the actual podcast. Let me know what you think. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly an improvement. I'm still a bit queasy about the article's structure but I agree it's sufficiently cited and it's now at least somewhat introduced. The lead is still, I think, serving more as introduction than summary, and if any part of the article offers context, that's where it is, which isn't ideal, but I think we've flopped exhausted over the GA threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### Images
The box of six images comes quite close to being purely decorative, as we are told nothing about the images other than that they are the subjects of reviews. Why were these topics chosen by Green, how do they help? And then, how do these photos actually assist the reader? I think what we need here is a cited statement by an independent scholar or commentator saying how eclectic and insightful Green is on topics as varied as pizzas and cave paintings, because he captures etc etc the spirit of modern exegetical hermeneutics or whatever. Without something like that, they're just a random set of photos, no?
I'm working on making that connection, as almost every article that talks about the podcast takes a couple sentences noting how diverse the subjects of the reviews are. Just not quite sure where to add it in:
A diverse range of topics have been reviewed on the podcast, which ultimately serve as starting points into explorations into Green's own life.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I finished my addition with a few sources and reviews that should also go towards helping with that notability of the podcast vs. the book concern.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### Minor comments
I understand "put on hiatus" to mean "pause, hold temporarily". In that case "putting the podcast on an indefinite hiatus" means "pausing forever", which doesn't seem right?

I agree the term is a bit vague and perhaps un-encyclopedic. I updated that sentence to "Green announced he did not have plans to release any further episodes" which is the closest to what he has said I could come up with.  --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### Summary
That's all from me. Basically the article is fine but it needs some context and some work on the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think you guys have a different conception of this article from me but hey, the world is a diverse place. Passing now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The images do not match the description on mobile devices.
File:IMAGE PROBLEM ON MOBILE DEVICES.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9A80:EA0:15B0:E5D6:8DB8:A254 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC) 

I've reworded the caption to work around this issue; it should now make sense even when viewed this way. Radagast (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Awesome!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9A80:EA0:3027:D5A:B359:CA8F (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I had edited the article to include notes in the Podcast Episode List table to indicate when an essay/topic was also included in the book and its alternate rating, if the rating was changed. [Revision ID=1252613977]
As this article is about both the podcast and the book, I feel like it is necessary to treat both aspects as equally important, and while it makes sense not to fully duplicate the tables across podcast and book, I feel like the clarification is necessary and helpful for readers. 
My revision was undone with a comment saying that it might be too detailed and potentially cross into fancruft, however wikipedia has no policy against obscure information, so long as it is well-written and correctly sourced, and that the judgment of something being "fancruft" is not, or shouldn't be, the sole or primary reason for deletion, rather it usually coincides with other non-wiki appropriate material. I argue that my edits were clearly and appropriate written, all sourced from the original printed books, written in a neutral tone, and otherwise not in breach of any wiki policy. They also were not particularly detailed or excessive, as they were in the form of footnotes and citations, thus not taking away from the main text of the article.
I know the Episode List table has been discussed generally before but given the previous conclusion to include the episode list as well as the ratings, I feel like it is only prudent to include all relevant information. People would most likely use the episode list to find areas they are interested in hearing/reading, and the star ratings are the main mechanic behind the book/podcast, therefore knowledge of whether certain topics are also included in the book is helpful and relevant. Mermer321 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The goal of the episode list is to be aligned with the standard format seen in most podcast articles, with the addition of the star ratings as it aligns with some of the articles written about the podcast that report the ratings as notable in their own right. If the goal was to have every detail about the book, I think the format you added it in would be too confusing to be useful to a reader. After a certain point, the density of information becomes overwhelming. I would also would say it is uncommon to list every essay found in a book as part of the synopsis. I couldn't immediately find an example in that breaks a book down in that way.  Cerebral726 (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)