Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   direct quotes always need a citation.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted. Minor comments:

1. "Politicians in the three island groups have referred to the Scottish referendum as the most important event in their political history "since the inception of the island councils in 1975"." This needs a citation as it's a direct quote.

2. "Analysis of the campaigns' Twitter accounts showed the gap between the campaigns increased from approximately 8,000 in August 2013 to 13,804 in February 2014, in favour of Yes Scotland." What are the units here?

3. "the video features 32 "well known faces from across the independence movement", including David Hayman, Martin Compston and Stuart Braithwaite." this direct quote needs a citation.

4. The debates section does not adequately summarize the main articles. There is almost no discussion of the actual debates that took place, and no discussion as to the content of them. (See WP:Summary style)

5. "The Independent reported that the protesters accused Robinson of "conniving with the Treasury to spread lies about the dangers to business and financial services of an independent Scotland."" This quote needs a citation.

6. The international reaction section should be organized as prose, not as a list. Further, though not a part of the GA criteria, WP:NOICONS says not to use flag icons in general prose.

Major Comments: I have two major comments that need to be addressed and will likely entail significant work.

1. The article seems to lack focus. The biggest problem is the Issues section which takes up a large portion of this article. These topics would be better covered in another article, perhaps Issues of the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 or something similar that could cover these topics in detail, and be summarized here. While detail is good (indeed, this article is very detailed and comprehensive!), what every bank thought about the economic issues of independence is unimportant for a general overview of the referendum. I feel WP:GANOT gives a good explanation: "The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. ...[T]he level of detail of each aspect of the topic should be appropriate to the article and kept in balance: where an aspect of the topic involves information which is or could be covered in more detail by another article, the article itself should summarize this information...". Additionally, the article is about 90kb of readble prose which is remarkably close to the "Should almost certainly be divided" category recomended at WP:LENGTH.

2. The article at times feels like it give undue weight to one side at times in terms of coverage. While I know due coverage does not mean the same length of coverage, there are places like the Economy subsection where 5 paragraphs are devoted to opposition opinions and one to supporters. I would recommend looking through and making sure you have given due coverage to both sides in accordance with sources. It is very possible you have, but I want to make sure of that.

Results

On Hold for 14 days pending revisions. This is a very well written article and I really enjoyed reading it. Though a relatively short list of issues, they are much larger in scope than other reviews and so this is reflected in the hold period. I would be happy to extend the hold period at the end of that time if there seems to be significant work being done. Feel free to post comments and questions on anything here as I'm watching the page. Wugapodes (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: It's been a week with no response. If you aren't willing to help with the review, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been focusing on other things lately. I will try to help where I can, but I do not have much time. I apologize for the lack of response! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed all of the "minor comments" on this article. I do not think I will be able to fix the "major comments" on my own though.--1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, you don't have to participate if you don't want to so don't feel obliged. I posted to some relevant wikiprojects to see if some of the editors would be willing to help. Thank you for your work! Wugapodes (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.