Talk:Boris Johnson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Paul MacDermott

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I'm minded to fail this article. It's a shame because ideally we should aim to get all major politician articles up to at least GA status, and as Johnson is a potential future leader of the Conservative Party this should be of the same standard as something like David Cameron or Margaret Thatcher, but sadly it is just not there yet. Much of the article is referenced, but a significant proportion of the prose consists of lengthy sections on his various television appearances and a string of instances in which he's made an unfortunate comment about someone or something and been called upon to resign. Undoubtedly some of these are notable, such as his comments about Liverpool, but others are not. Having an individual section about subjects such as his remarks on Portsmouth, and even his stance on Fracking seem to be stretching this a little far, and with so much criticism included could raise questions about the article's neutrality. Much of the information might find a better home in Political positions of Boris Johnson or even an article about his time as mayor, something similar to Premiership of David Cameron for instance (would Mayorship of Boris Johnson be right?).

On top of that there are sections and quotes without sources, and everything here should be referenced. Moreover an editor has expressed concern about a section, "Allegations of racism" having undue weight. It's a phrase that could apply to much of the overall content in my humble opinion. Other sections consist of just one very short paragraph, such as "Support for Fracking The Earth", and I wonder about the relevance of knowing that Franny Armstrong was a Livingstone supporter. What does it add to the article?

Boris Johnson is a controversial figure, although that doesn't negate his article from becoming a Good or even Featured article, but there are too many issues for it to pass right now. My advice would be to look at articles such as David Cameron, Neville Chamberlain and others which have reached GA or FA. Study their layout and the information that is regarded as relevant, then use them as a template for this one.

Overall comments

Pass/Fail:
- Fail An article missing references and with issues regarding undue weight cannot be a GA without substantial work. I'm afraid there is too much to do in the timespan of a GA review. I would suggest working on the article and then re-nominating it at a later date. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to ask for it to be reassessed. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The reviewer has requested a second opinion, which I am happy to provide. I support the conclusion that the article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. I agree with the reasons given, and I will add that the current version of the article relies too heavily on quotations.
  
  I also recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, then reviewing every sentence in this article to remove words that might introduce bias. For example, "Johnson is a lover of Latin" doesn't seem to use very professional wording. Edge3 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

"Parental origins, education and marriages" is not an appropriate section header. Maybe change to "Personal life"? The current "Personal life" section could be merged into the other sections.
File:Mayor BoJo.jpg seems to be an unnecessary image. I think it should be removed from the article.
In the "2008 London Mayoral election", summarize the manifesto and remove the subsections.
Some of the "Television appearances" sections don't appear to be noteworthy. The section should be condensed by summarizing the key television appearances and removing the rest.
The "Allegations of racism" section has a cleanup tag that needs to be addressed.

Hope this helps. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]