Talk:Chequers plan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 09:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is (note that not all comments are on the regular talk page):

Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research:^[2]
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[3]
2. 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);^[4] (The daily express was used once, Wikipedia guidelines state that this source should be regarded with even more caution than other tabloids).
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. (Used that online tool, everything in order)
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[5] and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[6]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[7]
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content ; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions (Although I think the image of Johnson might be too big).

Comments

I think the major flaw with the current article is the weight given to the different sections. A good article does not have to be comprehensive, but it should not be selective in which parts it omits. For a more balances article, a list of suggestions:

Context (under proposal?):
1. Can you tell more about how specific and many pages the document is?
2. can you tell anything about how hard/soft a Brexit this would be? How it compares to Canada style and Norway plus? That citizens' (EU and UK) right are mentioned, but were guaranteed before.
Less on Johnson . Was mentioned on the talk page as well.
More on the response from the EU and reasons why Chequers plan was rejected:
1. May travelling accross Europe to garner support: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/09/17/hebben-de-britten-spijt-van-hun-keuze-en-elf-andere-vragen-over-de-brexit-a1616764 (Google translate might help you here)
2. For instance, that is was welcomed as a step in the right direction: https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/donald-tusk-concedes-mays-brexit-plan-is-step-in-the-right-direction-says-hes-a-true-admirer-of-british-pm-37341160.html
3. That one of the reasons cherry-picking the single market is non-negotiable is that it might encourage other member states to want to cherry-pick too: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-eu-donald-tusk-has-told-theresa-may-her-chequers-brexit-plan-will-not-work-2018-9?r=US&IR=T
4. That even when tariffs on goods are the same, the UK could get an industrial advantage considered unfair, by relaxing rules on services. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/09/17/hebben-de-britten-spijt-van-hun-keuze-en-elf-andere-vragen-over-de-brexit-a1616764
5. a) EUs concern that a third country would execute its customs checks b) Campaigners' claims that this will lead to increased smuggling. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-eu-donald-tusk-has-told-theresa-may-her-chequers-brexit-plan-will-not-work-2018-9?r=US&IR=T
The result of negotiation:
1. how does it differ from the Chequers' deal?
2. By stating: "The outcome needs support from the UK parliament and the EU leaders", you seem to imply that the EU parliament has no say in this matter. It does: https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-ireland-european-parliament-would-veto-deal-without-backstop-say-meps/

The article is relatively short, so even though I'm asking for quite a big rebalancing of the article, it should be doable within a week. I'll put the review on hold for now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with the changes so far. I was reading the French version of this article, and noticed some other things are missing from the current article: a quick summary of the events leading up to the Chequers deal, the duration of the negotiations, and maybe reactions from outside the EU (Trump had something to say, but maybe we should just ignore that). I think that the content of the plan is the most important bit to work on. Thanks for your dedication! If you need a couple more days, I'll definitely give them to you. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another source that might be useful for your last section. This source details what parts of chequers are in the political declaration: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/framework-uk-eu-future-relationship. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've not heard from you in quite a while, I have decided to fail the nomination. The major concern is point 3a, and 4. In addition to my comments of the 11th of April, I notice that no other UK party than the Tories are featured in the reactions to the Chequers deal paragraph. This gives me a bit of concern about neutrality. I think it is fair to focus more on the Tory reaction than the other parties combined, but I think a single line should balance.

I hope you don't feel discouraged by my assessment, and continue improving the article for a second attempt! Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
^ The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.

[2] Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."

[3] Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.

[4] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.

[5] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[6] Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold.

[7] The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]