Talk:Accelerationism/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Shredlordsupreme (talk · contribs) 07:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I look forward to reading it. It may take me a few days to post my comments.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I'm really sorry about how long it's taken me to get around to this.

Is there a particular reason you don't give page numbers in the references? This makes verification rather difficult.

The article frequently mentions thinkers or philosophical concepts without explaining what they mean. This makes it a rather difficult read and I think that more could be done to make it accessible. This is particularly apparent in the fact that posthumanism and antihumanism are described as central tenets of accelerationism, but never explained. This is not the only example, though. I also think that the article overuses quotations. Explaining things in your words could also help readability.

Here are a few more detailed comments:

• "Land and the CCRU drew upon contemporary media and culture such as cyberpunk and jungle music to further develop these ideas" I don't read the source as saying this, but rather that their theory resembled cyberpunk and jungle music.
• "in a right-wing, pro-capitalist manner" Were Land and the CCRU really right-wing from the start. My understanding was that Land only drifted to the right later.
• "Critiquing the man-made vs. natural distinction as arbitrary and theological" difficult to parse, would suggest: "Critiquing the distinction between the man-made and the natural"
• "Srnicek and Williams used the term" The rest of the article uses present tense for these kinds of statements.
• "Capitalist economics is extremely sensitive to hyperstition, where confidence acts as an effective tonic, and inversely" Not sure I understand the "and inversely".
• Saying that you accessed a source via SpringerLink, EBSCO, etc. seems unusual to me and rather unnecessary.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these things and then give the article another readthrough. Carabinieri (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and no problem with the time it took

I will say I was learning to edit Wikipedia a lot through editing this article, so certain artifacts likely still remain from before I started editing it or mistakes I made while editing. Some of the missing pg numbers in refs are probably partly from that, as I may have forgotten to come back and add that as I've learned to cite stuff better. Some are probably because the wikilibrary sources often show entire articles/chapters as one page, but I think some may still list pg numbers for that article/chapter in the info that I may have missed. Inconsistent tenses are probably something I missed as I was learning too.

Posthumanism and antihumanism are indeed not described in depth and would be quite easy to add further descriptions on, but could I ask which other philosophical concepts you think need more explanation? The other concepts I can think of are ones that I think are comprehensively explained enough for its purpose in the article, without going into the detail necessary for a full article (ie. Deleuze/Guattari's model, Prometheanism, Land's issues with transcendental idealism)

Overquoting was a big issue of mine when I started editing the article. I tried to add more general descriptors over time that I felt would at least justify quotes and primaries when I wanted to use them, but I'll take note and reconsider some of the quotes I used.

I do think the source on cyberpunk/jungle does show it was inspired by those, as it talks about historical background and a desire to mix theory with cyberpunk and jungle aesthetics. That said, other sources on cyberpunk/jungle influence are in the article, so it's not a big deal for me to replace this one in the lead either.

Sources generally seem to cite Land in general as right wing, without distinction between timeframes as far as I can tell. His recent neoreactionary work is certainly even more right wing, but his/CCRU's interest in laissez-faire capitalism does still fit right politics, no? Left-accelerationism sources also mention Mark Fisher starting as pro-capitalist/Landian, but shifting left after becoming disillusioned. The info on it is pretty confusing sometimes though; at least one source I can think of says Land was left before the CCRU, while there's also a Mackay quote saying Land was probably never quite left-wing. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that you've been making changes based on my comments. I'm not sure if you're finished. Could you let me know, when you are? Then, I'll get back to you. Thanks.Carabinieri (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Shredlordsupreme and Carabinieri: It has been a while since someone has edited this page. What is the status of this nomination? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly, it will probably be some time before I get all the page numbers, figure out which philosophical concepts need explanation, cut quotes, and figure out whatever else it needs. I don't think it'll be ready for next steps any time soon. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• In that case, I think it might be best to close this for now. If I can help you with anything, please let me know. If you agree that it's best to close and decide to renominate, I'd be happy to review again, if you hit me up, so you don't have to go through the long wait again.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Carabinieri: As the reviewer, if you still think it is best to close this, can you mark it as "fail". This can be renominated when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)