|
→Excessive cites and complexity in the lead: new section
|
|||
Line 229:
Great to see recent improvement to the article reflecting a balance between RCraig09's eye for accessibility & 'typical reader’' friendly approach, against I2K's outstanding scholarship. I thought maybe we could go a little further in simplifying the first para for the benefit of the less educated reader, and edited accordingly. Per not wanting to get in the way of editors who might be putting in the hard work to take this to FA, no objection to my edit being fully reverted without discussion, if it's not seen as an improvement. Except, it would be good not to put back the bit about ''polar'' glaciers, as including that sort of nonsense so prominently discredits our credibility and serves pro polluter interests. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:I undid that revision; polar glacier is [https://www.britannica.com/science/polar-glacier a term used by Britannica] and there is also [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03036-4 this Nature headline] - and that's just from a cursory search. Think about it; how is it inaccurate to say that [[Thwaites Glacier]] is a polar glacier? Greenland's glaciers like [[Helheim Glacier|Helheim]] might be a bit further away from the geographic pole, but according to the explicit definition supplied by Britannica, they would count as well. Not commenting on readability/citation count, since other editors are more focused on that anyway. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 06:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||