Talk:Eldon League

Eldon League was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 30, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eldon League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article shortly. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not think this article is ready to become a good article. Below, I will outline some concerns that cause me to reach this conclusion:

The article relies on one source for most of its information, which is a newspaper article. I think this article needs to source more works to gather and verify its information.
I searched WP:LIBRARY for sources, and found "Champagne-cork duel decides the feudal vote" by Craig Seton published in The Times on June 5, 1975. I also suggest looking through other databases to find additional sources. EDIT: Another source I found was The Past is Not a Foreign Country which you can borrow for free from archive.org when you register an account. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a "History" section, so I do not know when this group was formed or if they still exist today. This should be added.
The "Views and aims" section feels disorganised, with a single-sentence paragraph about anti-feminism, then a paragraph mostly consisting of quotes, then a general list of aims. I think this section should be organised with the first part explaining their over-arching philosophy, then subsequent sentences and paragraphs describing specific policies of the group. Also, the views and aims section should reduce the amount of quotes in the section and instead paraphrase the group's aims.
I would remove the BBC Archive Facebook post as a reference, and instead try to find the reference on the BBC website, which is considered more reliable than a Facebook posting.
Per MOS:OVERSECTION, shorter sections should be merged together or expanded upon. The Connections section should be merged with other information, and I suggest expanding upon the Legacy section.
The lede contains information that is not in the body of the article. Per MOS:LEDE, the lede should be a summary of the article's information. All information in the lede should also be present in the body of the article.

I hope the above helps. I am going to close this review so that you are not rushed to make improvements. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, they are really appreciated! Unfortunately, I can't find much about the history of the group. I really appreciate the archive.org reference, as I probably would not have found it otherwise. I've also tried to look for a better source for the BBC Archive Facebook post, but can't find it. But the Facebook post is from the official BBC account so it should be seen as reliable. Merged content from the lede into that of the rest of the article. —AFreshStart (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]