Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still needs some effort with respect to the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
See comments below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See comments below
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The File:Home logo.gif page will need a fair use rationale for this article (each article's use requires a separate rationale)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good luck improving the article

MoS issues:

The citation style is inconsistent with respect to linking publishers and works: sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. I suggest always linking, especially for a short article like this. Readers from outside the UK may want to know what the Eastern Daily Press is, for example.
All of the cites end with a period except the Parliamentary ones that have "column" in them. (Or is this just a "feature" of the cite template being used?)
The article has no redlinks. It looks like several of the programs, conferences, and legislative acts mentioned in the text might well be worthy of articles themselves. Per WP:REDLINK, adding these helps indicate to other editors opportunities for new work and helps WP improve.
The lead section is a little thin. I think something about the low quota numbers should be added, as well as something about the program's seemingly mixed effectiveness so far. This would better summarize the article.

Coverage issues:

What was the date of the Mandate Refugee Scheme? Not clear if it's in the past or another program in the present.
The low numbers in this program is what's striking to the reader. The quota numbers are compared to that of other countries, but perhaps that could be expanded upon a bit. Regarding "The British government has faced criticism", who has done the criticizing? Maybe a sentence about the total refugee population in the world during the mid-late 2000s should be added, to give a sense for the size of the overall problem?
And while it's mentioned that this is separate from the normal asylum process in the UK, the numbers for that process need to be given. Does the Gateway Protection Programme handle a small fraction compared to those applying for asylum? What about those granted asylum?
How politically controversial was creation of this program? By what margin was the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 approved? What has been the reaction of politicians outside the Labour Party to it?
Why have the numbers resettled been so much under quota? Why are local councils reluctant to participate? And are there other reasons besides that?
What has been the reaction of the general public nationwide to the program (as opposed to those in specific resettlement areas)? Any opinion polls available? Or even if there are polls related to the asylum/refugee resettlement issues in general, that would be useful. The quoted fragment "... some of the attacks on the notion of political asylum that we have heard in recent years ..." hints at some context that this article doesn't otherwise explore.

Let me know if you have any questions regarding these points. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to address these comments. So far, I've fixed the MoS issues apart from expanding the lead section. Of the coverage issues, I've added details on asylum numbers and the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I can't find any start date for the Mandate Refugee Scheme and there's not much else available on public reaction to the programme. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of your work on this? The normal GA review period is a week, and it's now been over a month. While the article is mostly "good", there are still some frustrating holes in it; even one of your additions since the review leads to another – why did the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 pass by a large margin in Commons but take nine goes to get through Lords, and was the Gateway Protection Programme part of that much larger overall Act controversial or widely accepted? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taking a while since there is very little published information on many of the issues you raised. I think I've pretty much exhausted the material available now. The hostility to the 2002 Act from the Lords stemmed largely from their opposition to the detention of asylum seekers rather than anything to do with the GPP (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the article in a couple of places to help fill out some of this. There are still some unanswered questions, but overall I think this article now fulfills the GA criteria and I'm passing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]