Talk:Plan S

Neutrality

This article is biased. Half of it is dedicated to the backlash from commercial publishers. One of them was not even identified as such. The paragraph started with the claim that this backlash was from "research organizations", failing to properly indicate the obvious conflict of interest - these organizations are all publishers of non-open access journals.

The "response" paragraph isn't much better. It started with the quote of a random political activist who has never published an academic article in his life, emphasized that he thought the plan isn't "perfect", and ended on the a sentence designed to make readers think that proponents of the plan are merely pirates.

And there is the obvious issue that the plan itself, the subject of the article, is barely described. The focus is on the negative reactions, and "positive" reactions. This isn't a news article; facts are more important than reactions of random people. Quantum Knot (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I accept that I'm no expert in the topic area and this article needs a look from someone who knows more about the topic to explain what the plan is. I perfectly understand that Monbiot's response here may be seen as undue as well, and I have no problem with it being removed. Thank you so much for the edits, btw! 🙂 – Bangalamania (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bangalamania for setting up this article. Great job!

I see no obvious undue bias in this Wikipedia article. As Quantum Knot says, the article currently is heavy on expert reactions in the media and light on details of what the plan actually is, but that is okay because Wikipedia is a reflection of what reliable sources in media report so Wikipedia reflects the bias in the media itself for emphasizing reactions rather than details. There is no obvious third party authoritative source to summarize and cite presenting an objective evaluation of what this plan is. When someone has that source, then they can summarize it in the article.

Bias is everywhere, especially in information from the world's most authoritative commentators which Wikipedia cites. Wikipedia only curates that information. It is beyond our scope to fix the bias of external media. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Help! There is an important item to add but for some reason I can only edit the lead section

I have two items that I would like to add to this article but for some reason (probably a bug) I cannot do it. I can only edit the lead section, and these two items don't belong there.

(1) In a major turn of events, on 9 April 2020 "Springer Nature says it commits to offering researchers a route to publishing open access in Nature and most Nature-branded journals from 2021." This is documented here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01066-5

(2)This info used to be in the lead section and it should go to somewhere else: "Professor Johan Rooryck of Leiden University was appointed Open Access Champion by cOAlition S on 28 August 2019; he replaced Robert-Jan Smits, who stepped down in March 2019." Voltdye (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plan S/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The nominator created the article in 2018 and, after it was nominated, changed their user name, so (despite the mismatch between nominator name in the GA nomination list and the article history) this is not a drive-by nomination. The article is written from the point of view of 2018 or 2019, asserting that certain things are expected to happen by 2021. It is late 2021. The article badly needs updating to reflect the current status of this initiative, not its status at its initiation, and to distinguish its initial state from its later revisions (WP:GACR #3a, at least). Large portions of this article are numbered or bulleted lists, presumably directly copied from primary sources in that form, rather than digested into prose (WP:USEPROSE, WP:GACR #1b). Although there are many footnotes, roughly half of them are statements of support or participation from some organization, sourced to that organization. Far too many of the sources are primary (WP:GACR #2b). The "Principles" section is mostly unsourced and its single primary source fails to verify its content (indeed, fails to verify the existence of "Coalition S", as it now instead describes something called "Science Europe"); the "Mandatory criteria" section is entirely unsourced (WP:GACR #3c). The bare-bones list of supporting organizations, with opposing statements not similarly grouped in an easy-to-find way and scattered among haphazard quotes with varying intents in the "various reactions", creates the impression that this article is intended to rally support for the initiative by showing how widely it has been supported, rather than to cover it in neutral terms (WP:GACR #4). There is one image, which appears properly licensed, but I am unable to determine whether the workflow it describes has been reliably published, is an official publication of the initiative, or is possibly a personal opinion of its author, a German librarian; in any case it serves no purpose as an illustration to the article, as it is purely text and unreadable without going to another page to read it, much like any other reference or external link; a screenshot of the initiative's web site would be equally useful or useless (WP:GACR #6b). I conclude that this is very far from meeting many GA criteria, and therefore should be an immediate failure under WP:GAFAIL #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)