Talk:2016 London mayoral election/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am starting a GA Review for this article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios

This review is on complete hold until the following phrases are corrected: From theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/08/sadiq-khan-to-tackle-gender-issues-in-london-mayoral-bid:

His other ideas include a zero-tolerance policing approach to domestic and sexual violence, publishing a gender pay audit of City Hall to make sure men and women are rewarded equally, and an attempt to make childcare more affordable by awarding key worker status to employees in the industry.

In WP article:

including a zero-tolerance policing approach to domestic and sexual violence, publishing a gender pay audit of City Hall, and an attempt to make childcare more affordable by awarding key worker status to employees in the industry

In Guardian:

Khan said he would be a proud feminist in City Hall, putting gender equality at the heart of his bid to be mayor

In WP article:

Khan pledged to put environmental concerns at the heart of his campaign.

"at the heart of" could be adjusted into a different phraseology, plus which is true...gender or environmental concerns?

Thanks @Shearonink:, I've corrected these. 'At the heart of' was just coincidental use of the phrase; but either way it's a lazy one and so I've changed this, and the other clearer case. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The possible copyvio issues have been dealt with to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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: {{GAList/check|yes}

   Please see comments regarding verb tense below. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Verb tense issues have all been corrected. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Please see comments about some of the tables and other concerns below. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   All the raw URLs in the tables have now been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool after the proviso issues were fixed, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Lays out all the facts dispassionately. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   Gives all the various viewpoints about the candidates without devolving into POV/puffery/etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|yes}

   The image of Goldsmith is lacking the complete file info, please see File:Zac Goldsmith MP at 'A New Conversation with the Centre-Right about Climate Change'.jpg

   This was in error, images are all fine. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pending the below issues. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   All is well, this article is now a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

General Comment

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: This article is so massive, I think it will be somewhat more workable if I review the sections as I read them. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work @Shearonink: - likewise I may reply over a week or so through the different sections! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

To the point and neatly summarizes the article. Well-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of sections

Why does the Results section appear first? I think this section needs to be adjusted to appear in sequence. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Background

Looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral system

Does a good job - especially to those unfamiliar with this election - of explaining the mechanics of candidates winning the office.Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate and their selection processes

The major issue I have with the individual candidates' sections is the verb tense that is used. I personally find it jarring, as the tense confusingly shifts from past to present, for instance,

An environmentalist, Goldsmith opposes expansion of Heathrow and has vowed to continue investment in public transport. He is in favour of "right-to-buy" schemes for buying homes, and wants to expand housing stock through high-density, low-rise construction. He is a Eurosceptic and announced support for leaving the European Union

It seems to me that all of these policy positions were Goldsmith's when he was campaigning for the Mayor's office and the verb tense should reflect that:

An environmentalist, Goldsmith opposed expansion of Heathrow and vowed to continue investment in public transport. He was in favour of "right-to-buy" schemes for buying homes, and wanted to expand housing stock through high-density, low-rise construction. He is a Eurosceptic and announced support for leaving the European Union.

The verb tense issue is not just in the Goldsmith section but also crops up in Khan's:

Key policies that Khan has proposed include a London 'living rent';

It seems like this should be:

Key policies that Khan proposed included a London 'living rent';

Other candidates

However, the BNP re-registered in February 2016 and Furness is among the list of candidates

should be

However, the BNP re-registered in February 2016 and Furness ws among the list of candidates

All of the statements in the candidates' sections are referencing something that happened in the past when they were all running for the office of Mayor, I think these policy statements should reflect that these are not necessarily present positions - the verb tenses need to be gone over and adjusted in all the sections. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Media endorsements

Why is this section rendered as a table? Could the information be rendered as statements instead? The table is visually jarring as a stand-alone table. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Campaign

Before October 2015: again, this section has the shifting verb tenses. For instance:

Candidates such as Berry and Pidgeon promised a rent cap, while both Goldsmith and Khan argued for increased home building. Caroline Pidgeon is in favour of increased use of rent-to-buy loans and George Galloway has pledged to use Compulsory Purchased Orders to obtain empty homes for social housing.

Galloway's position is unreferenced. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

If anyone comes along and fixes stuff up, please ping me and maybe leave a note in the section so I know you've done some work on it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Shearonik, it is on my to do list and will ping when I get round to it! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:: Thanks again for the review. I have fixed the tenses in the 'candidates' section, and removed the unreferenced Galloway comment; JerrySa1 fixed the tense issue in the Pre-October 2015 section. I agree with what you've said the media endorsements table - I will work this into 'debates' as a 'media' section but have not yet done this.

With regards to the Goldmsith image - I'm not very au fait with these things, but I can't see a problem? The file appears to have been uploaded from Flickr by a bot and has the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic licence?

With regards to the results - these could be moved. Our rationale behind having them at the top of the page was that many users will come to the article wanting the results only: this is the key information. However I'm open to moving this if you still think it's a good idea? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Re: the results table - your explanation makes sense. It's a matter of personal preference - not my fave but when working on GA Reviews I try to give editors working on GAs leeway on these types of things - after all they're the writers & creators - not me, so it's fine.

The image seems fine - I must have mis-read the license.

I am going to do a few more proofing-readthroughs to make sure all the tense issues are fixed etc. & that I haven't missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

@Super Nintendo Chalmers:

• Spelling: He had previosuly worked as a human rights - should be "previously"
• Berry made increasing affordable housing a key policy area in her mayoral campaign, through brownfield building... "brownfield" should be linked to Brownfield land, it is a term that is unfamiliar to many. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:: Done, and media endorsements now merged with debates section. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A linking issue within tables

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I was doing another of what I call a "deep readthrough", a type of slow, steady proofreading of the article and came upon an issue that I missed in my previous passes.
In one section of this article there are multiple external links/raw URLs placed directly within multiple tables and this concerns me. These links go directly to outside sources, specifically in Section 8 "Opinion polls". The content guideline of Wikipedia: Citing sources states in its Section 7 "Handling links in citations" to "avoid embedded links", and, I could be mistaken, but I think this pretty much applies to all article creation components - not just the prose but tables, references, etc. This issue will need some further discussion. Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Happy to redo those as more regular inline citations - may be tomorrow but will get on to it soon! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Thanks. That's the last thing to be fixed before I finish up my Review. If you don't mind, please ping me here when you're done. Shearonink (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Am following your improvements to the sourcing - thanks for all you've done, only two tables left. Looking forward to finishing this Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think this is now done! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Thanks. And congrats - Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thank you very much for taking the time to carefully review it! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)