Jump to content

Talk:1999 Welsh Conservatives leadership election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed, well done ThatRandomGuy1, apologies for the slow pace of the review, I would encourage you to nominate an interesting fact from the article to Did you know.--Llewee (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 Welsh Conservatives leadership election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ThatRandomGuy1 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThatRandomGuy1, I am going to be reviewing this nomination. I have perhaps unadvisedly wandered into the world of Celtic Tories in the past so I might as well take another plunge. This is generally a well-written article. I will give a short list of suggestions for how it could be improved further. Please use the  Done template to indicate when each problem has been dealt with. Feel free to add any comments or questions below each point.--Llewee (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead of the article needs to be heavily condensed. MOS:LEADLENGTH comments that "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". Given the length of the article, it should probably be about two paragraphs. I would suggest that the best option is to rewrite the lead from scratch, focusing on the most essential elements of the topic. You can then more details if there is space.
     Done. I've condensed the lead to two paragraphs and rewrote most of it. The first paragraph largely focuses on the election itself while the second one focuses on the aftermath. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is still somewhat too long. It needs to be condensed down to the most essential facts of the article. The lead was a major issue with my first nomination (See:Talk:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes/GA1). The current article lead (See:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes) is I think a decent example of the length and structure that is necessary, also the lead of Educationally subnormal. By the end of Paragraph 1 the reader could briefly explain what the subject is, by the end of paragraph 2 they could give a heavily simplified timeline of the subject. That is all that is really needed at this stage. The information included should also be relatively balanced between sections.--Llewee (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (?). I've condensed the lead further, rewriting more of it and removing some of the additional info. I think it's at a good length now, though I'd be more than happy to make more changes or reductions if needed. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a sentence or two on the wider political situation would be helpful at the start of the background section. Perhaps mention the 1997 general election and 1999 Welsh devolution referendum.
     Done. I've added a paragraph detailing the context surrounding the 1997 general election and devolution referendum, as well as the democratisation of the Tory party. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richards' decision to appoint Davies without consulting..." — this sentence would fit better at start of the previous paragraph.
    • I'd argue that this should stay as it is as I think the sentence flows well into the next one about the meeting on 6 August. Cutting them off between the two paragraphs feels a bit clumsy in my opinion. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would fit better at the start of the previous paragraph because that paragraph is about criticism of Richards' leadership. However, I don't think it is a massive issue and won't fail the review based on it.--Llewee (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do checks on the sources and a copyright check once these issues have been dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llewee. Thanks for reviewing the article! This is the second of mine which you've reviewed, the first being Not flash, just Gordon (good timing, since a certain individual has just regained power for Labour for the first time since Gordon's departure in 2010). I plan for this to be my second good article and I'm happy it has the chance to be reviewed. After this, I also intend on creating the 1998 Welsh Conservatives leadership election article (who knows, maybe I'll try to get that to GA status too!). ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThatRandomGuy1, apologies for the slight delay. I have responded now.--Llewee (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThatRandomGuy1, I have put the article through earwig (see here). No major issues but their is more overlap than ideal. Much of this is official terms (e.g grievous bodily harm) and quotes but there is some close phrasing that could be cut down (e.g "stepped down as leader of the" could be changed to "left his role").--Llewee (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've changed that phrase to "left his role" as suggested and also made some other changes to some similar minor Earwig detections (e.g. causing GBH to inflicting GBH, investment to funding, etc). ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that seem's better I have done a number of spot checks on sources which appear fine. Llewee (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_Welsh_Conservatives_leadership_election&oldid=1241551021"