Talk:Traditional Britain Group/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well, the article will be touching cloth on this page, but that's not a problem :) SN54129 16:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
It was an excellent idea to remove all the section headers and turn choppy sentences into prose (even while I was reviewing!) and overall it's fine; obviously it's going to be difficult to avoid repetition of, say. "conference" when there section is effectively about conferences. However, sometimes this leads to unnecessary repeytion: an example, Estonian Finance Minister Martin Helme addressed the 2019 conference.[19] Polish vice-chairman of the National Movement Krzysztof Bosak also spoke at the 2019 conference could be tightened by Estonian Finance Minister Martin Helme addressed the 2019 conference,[19] as did the vice-chairman of the Polish National Movement, Krzysztof Bosak.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It's correct to directly attribute quotes in the lead, also, per WP:LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. I think this is one of those occasions where, since the lead is effectively calling BLP's racists, cite away.
Lauder-Frost should be fully introduced first time you mention him.
Check ellipses per MOS:DOTDOTDOT, esp. NBSPs.
Foriegn language titles per MOS:LANG.
Cite "considerable pressure" per WP:SUBSTANTIATE.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Per WP:RSP, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Can you justify using it?
Other sources, such as The Times, Routledge, are OK, the Daily Record is supporting a pretty basic fact, The National appears to be supporting the same material, The Telegraph, Independent, BBC and Palgrave are all reputable publishers and papers of record. The Mirror perhaps less so, per WP:DAILYMIRROR, but no consensus; supports the material it claims to. Hope Not Hate is WP:BIASED, but is not supporting anything other than facts; I wonder if another source can be found? (Comment: I couldn't.) WP:RSP is, perhaps unsurprisingly, silent on the reliability of the Estonian piece, but it is being used to support the basic fact of the feller attending a conference. Obviously the group's own website and YT channel is WP:PRIMARY, but that's fine for quoting their own speeches etc, which is all they're used for.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig is all clear, except for a quote, and a google search brings nothing up.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Yes, and some congratulations are due; a difficult task to avoid personalising a topic such as this whichever end of the spectrum one's politics, but you've done a good job at tonelessy noting critiscm without unduly emphasising it.

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Would suggest something not so close to WP's own voice than "and has a broad set of aims and objectives", or move one of the cites.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The sole image is self-published under CC-BY-SA3.0

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
(Non-reviewer comment) WP:ALTTEXT, while not a criterion, does seem increasingly recommended.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

"All the things have been changed that it was necessary to change".
Thanks so much for the review! Think I have Done all of the above edits. Removed the Business Insider source, but unfortunately had to rely on the Mirror and Daily Record sources in doing so. I don't think the content is that controversial, so I think their use is justified. Attributed a few of the Hope not Hate claims as per WP:BIASED. Again, I think its use here may be justified as nothing they are saying has been contested (and it's now attributed to the group). Hope this is okay —AFreshStart (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support these changes, and until our august colleagues at WP:RSP say otherwise, we're ok with those papers, even if tabloids; as you say, they're not making particularly extraordinary claims. Your structural rearrangement is a great improvement also. Cheers! SN54129 18:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]