Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello N Oneemuss. I have read through the page and it looks well written and does not contain any obvious problems. I will start reviewing today, and hope to have it completed in the next 6-7 days. Please bear in mind that it may take a bit longer, as this is my first review. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi N Oneemuss, here is my review:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No issues here, spelling and grammar are good throughout, and the relevant MOS sections are followed well. I have fixed a few small punctuation errors myself.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Most sources are reliable and well referenced, the only exception being this one [1] from Lincolnshire Pride Magazine, the author's opinions seem to be fairly biased. The page scores 10.7% on the copyvio detector, nothing notable as the only matches are direct quotes.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I can't see any major content ommisions, summary style used well throughout (bar small problem descibed below).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
UKIP seems to have far more coverage in the lead section than the Conservatives, even though they have never won the seat. I understand the reasoning (referendum result, high vote shares etc), but I would suggest slimming it down to provide a more balanced view, as the details are already given in a later section. Everything else is portrayed neutrally and without bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are freely licensed and well captioned. A picture of Skegness (if available) would be good as a counterpoint to the one of Boston, and an image of either/both of Matt Warman's predecessors would be good in the

Member of Parliament section.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Well written article, references and content are all good. Just a few issues to fix, so I am putting it on hold for a week. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to fix:

Change or remove Lincolnshire Pride reference
- Done
Condense UKIP coverage in main section
- I've done some condensing. Not sure if it's enough though.
  - Looks good, I have condensed slightly more Done
Add Skegness image if possible
- Added. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice image, I have edited the caption as there is no context for the Clock Tower Done
Repeat the explanatory note for Buckingham in the lead section
- I removed the part about Buckingham as part of condensing UKIP coverage Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change 'promoted' for 'moved' in relation to Mark Simmonds' shadow ministerial positions, as he was still a Minister of State when he moved to the Health brief
- Done
Change '...anti-European Union UK Independence Party' to '...Eurosceptic UK Independence Party', makes more sense as that is where the link points to
- Done
Rephrase "...since legally all unprotected constituencies must have electorate size within 5% of the median electorate for unprotected British constituencies" doesn't read very well.
- @PinkPanda272: "..must be within 5% of the median electorate size.." Does that read better?
  - Good start, I have condensed it slightly more Done
The sentence about house prices and wages in the Constituency Profile section is quite long and cumbersome, could do with spitting.
- Done
The graph at the top of the election section states that minor parties that never received more than 5% of the vote are omitted. The Green Party is included, even though they have never met this threshold?
- Removed I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good call, looks better now

I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss and Username6892: Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]