Talk:Centre Democrats (Netherlands)

Extreme right?

Intangible copy edited the article saying he has removed some weasel words. The most consistent word removed was "extreme right" the CD was an extreme right party if ever there was one in the Netherlands. See Lucardie "Extreme Partijen Doodgravers van de democratie?" in Holsteyn Democratie in Verval p.69 for instance. Extreme right is not a weasel word and the CD is extreme right. --C mon 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Extreme right" is a pretty vacuous term. What is the reference point for "extreme right"? Better is to describe the party on ideological lines, instead along empiricst political science lines. Intangible 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If we not base our descriptions in an encyclopedia on empirical political science, what should we base it on? An intuition? A personal impression? Because some one feels that something is meaningless? This is an encyclopedia based on WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR, which upholds scientific standards, and does not allow our personal opinions about terms to remove them. -- C mon 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Centre Democrats (Netherlands)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some initial questions

These are somewhat nitpicky but well-meaning comments, so that readers can understand the party better.

• In the lead, I removed the sentence "despite claiming that it stood in the centre of the political landscape" as it's well possible for a centrist party to be nationalist. If a scholar has disputed their centrist self-label, it should say so, and say which scholar. I placed a "who" tag lower down in the article, around the claim "observers considered".
• What is a low-key member? Who were they? Why did they break?
• "steering a more moderate course" -- more moderate than what?
• Did they contest any local elections in its early years?
• Self-contradiction: "Despite widespread media coverage generated by Janmaat's reputation" and "During its early years, the Centre Democrats received extensive media attention on two occasions"
• Why did the two parties meet on 29 March 1986?
• Why did suddenly Jaanmat want to be reinstated, why was he out of the teacher job in the first place?
• "improving both its image and its grassroots support" -- how, what strategy?
• "removed from the Dutch leadership" -- better word than leadership
• Prosecution of party members; approximately how many, how did it go?
• Was the cordon sanitaire a formal agreement, can the time be given more precisely than "soon"?
• joined other parties, left the party -- is this a reason for seats becoming vacant? It certainly isn't in my country.
• The paragraph containing the 1994 elections is confusing. Did they fail mainly because of a weak organization, or because of outside pressure?
• Suddenly it is said that the party was "right-wing populist", without the issue having been discussed before. Are we just to infer that from the few earlier sentences about the party's actual policies?
• How did they try to "broaden their appeal"? What issues did they try to raise? The social conservatism mentioned in the infobox is discussed very little; in three sentences.
• "the Dutch courts" -- which courts, did he take it to a Supreme Court?
• "The alliance soon fell apart" -- was it really an alliance?
• What legislation against the far right?
• Where did they assert "the indissoluble unity ..."? In the party platform, in a parliamentary speech etc? Same issue with "it sought reunification with ..."

I would also have a native-speaking English copyeditor go through the article.

• Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to questions;

• • • Your claim that "it's well possible for a centrist party to be nationalist" directly conflict with mainstream political science (it is seen as self-contradictory). All we can do is to cite the opinions of political science and the party itself.
    • It is a non-notable member. Since the literature doesn't mention it, it is likely unimportant and/or unclear.
    • More moderate than what it was formerly. (Isn't this obvious?) Read the full paragraph.
    • Nothing of importance at least.
    • It is hardly a "self-contradiction" that the party generally received media attention due to Janmaat, and that it gained specific attention due to the two incidents.
    • To discuss a merger, reportedly.
    • Because he did not get re-elected to parliament. Because he had become an MP.
    • What is your question here really? The strategy was what you cited...
    • Is "Dutch leading political positions" OK?
    • You will find information on the important ones further down the article.
    • It was formal enough for the party to become systematically excluded from parliament and government. It happened following the incidents, as stated in the article.
    • Well, it obviously is in the Netherlands.
    • As said in the article; largely due to external media pressure.
    • I decided to scrap the sentence.
    • They tried to downplay the foreigner issue, as it is implied in the article.
    • Is this really necessary information? (The scholars obviously didn't think so.)
    • No, it was more just a cooperation, as I originally had written. A later editor had changed this to "alliance".
    • See my edit in the article.
    • See my edits in the article.

A native-speaking English copyeditor has recently gone through the article per request. I had this done right before I nominated it for GA. (Are you sure you are competent to judge this given that you yourself are a Norwegian, with a self-declared "en-3" level of knowledge of the English language?) – Bellatores (t.) 16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the second opinion requested for the entire article, or just the note about the copyedit? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That was mainly what I questioned, but User:Geschichte must consider how to pursue possible other issues. – Bellatores (t.) 12:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Asking second opinion

The main editor questioned the reviewer's ability to judge the article; therefore seeking a second opinion. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Centre Democrats (Netherlands)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Should it need a copyedit as the first review noted, I'll have this sent to GOCE, but we'll find out once the review is done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "it has been written that the Centre Democrats became almost a family affair." I'd take out the 'it has been written' part; doesn't sound encyclopedic.
• "It did not however exclude people based on ethnicity" commas between however needed
• "The Centrumtaal and the Middenkoers, were" remove comma

Just a few things to fix. I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now resolved the issues you pointed out. – Bellatores (t.) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the issues are fixed, it passes as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)