Talk:Not flash, just Gordon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Not flash, just Gordon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 10:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi ThatRandomGuy1, I'm going to be reviewing this article. I'll point out a few immediate issues to begin with.

• Their is an excessive number of short unattributed quotes. Ensure all quotes are attributed (e.g According to a BBC report of the time...) or use own words.
• Their is a slight issue with the neutrality of the article. The article takes certain assumptions about Brown's personality as a given which may have been the mainstream view of the period but are opinion. You don't need to add counterarguments or anything like that but try to make clear through wording that the idea he was uncharismatic was a widely held perception not necessarily gospel truth.
• The Saatchi & Saatchi section needs clarifying. It states that MS Saatchi separated from Saatchi & Saatchi in the 1990s. Did the companies remerge by 2008 or did the original company cease to exist?
• "which affects the constitutional foundations of the European Union.[71]" - change this to past tense

--Llewee (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've replaced most of the quotes with my own words but retained "famous" in the Saatchi & Saatchi section in scare quotes as it could be viewed as unneutral. I also attributed the "Brown strength" and "Cameron weakness" quotes in the Campaign section to their source.
• I've added perceived, viewed as, etc to describe these assumptions e.g. "Brown was known for his perceived awkward persona" and "Brown was viewed as having limited communication skills". Also did this for Blair and Cameron e.g. "Blair was known for his perceived charismatic personality" and "David Cameron was young and, like Blair, also viewed as charismatic".
• I've added information to the Saatchi & Saatchi section for clarification.
• Changed to past tense.

ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	The sources are broadly decent quality and standard for an article of this type.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The copyright detector mainly just picked up on quotes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The lead image has a resonable fair-use rational the others are in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done ThatRandomGuy1, I'll promote the article momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)