Billy Strachan was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ BulgeUwU: I've embedded some fields into the info-box, you might want to fill in the missing data for them. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Re this revert: If he spent his whole life supporting the MS, we should say that (with a source) in the body, as no reader would understand why there is a See also entry for it. The CPB link should go too, as it's in the body text. Relevant policy: MOS:NOTSEEALSO. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad more editors are showing an interest in this page but @ Jagmanst these changes to the lead couldn't have come at a worst time. The GA Review only started a few hours ago. Multiple editors also worked very hard during both the peer review and failed FA review to create the perfectly balanced lead.
There are other issues to such as his CPGB membership being mentioned in two paragraphs, and the changes make it sound as though it wasn't his hotel which was bombed but some other hotel, etc. The words "newspaper editor" should be kept in the lead seeing as he is notable for being the editor for one of Britain's earliest black newspapers Caribbean News. "British legal expert" also needs to be kept as Billy Strachan also contributed to multiple fields of British law including adoption, matrimonial proceedings, and drink driving, and held numerous high level positions in British courts.
How would you feel if we changed it back to the original and then we call you for final comments near the end of Liewee's GA review? This way we all get say without stepping over eathother. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 05:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Llewee - Since this issue has come up at ANI and at other pages, it should be noted for the GA review that a lot of the sourcing here is dubious in quality and much of it does not appear to be independent of the subject and is essentially communist party-origin. Taking some examples:
This is not to say there is no independent coverage at all of Strachan, but I think an article written based on independent sources would probably be quite different (but way more NPOV) than the present one. FOARP ( talk) 10:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Llewee I looked in yesterday and didn't have time to type this up there, so will add it here. There are also close-paraphrasing and source-to-text integrity issues:
That wording is sourced to Sherwood's own paper, yet it is copy-pasted from one of the few independent and reliable sources used in the article, page 56 of Stephen Bourne's book (you can borrow the book at archive.org and read pages 54 to 57 for the entry on Strachan).
I checked all of the Bourne content, and also found source-to-text integrity problems:
So I suspect some of the content comes from places other than what it is sourced to, and a closer look at source-to-text integrity and close paraphrasing or copyvio is warranted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
And an example of puffery: the article cites this content (in an awkward called-out section):
... to Meddick and Horsley, a writer for a British communist tabloid. This source calls it a "remarkable achievement", as does this source. Neither calls it "rare", and yet this statement is summarized in the lead as (emphasis added):
It remains to be verified if the "extremely rare" comes from Meddick, not an independent source as described at the ANI, or if it is original research. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This kind of content should not be sourced to a British communist tabloid: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Nor this:
.. which is not attributed to the British tabloid, although the need to do so, and to use Horsley more carefully was pointed out by Z1720 and Mujinga back in May. Horsley and the Morning Star are still used quite extensively, and without attribution. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Billy Strachan was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ BulgeUwU: I've embedded some fields into the info-box, you might want to fill in the missing data for them. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Re this revert: If he spent his whole life supporting the MS, we should say that (with a source) in the body, as no reader would understand why there is a See also entry for it. The CPB link should go too, as it's in the body text. Relevant policy: MOS:NOTSEEALSO. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad more editors are showing an interest in this page but @ Jagmanst these changes to the lead couldn't have come at a worst time. The GA Review only started a few hours ago. Multiple editors also worked very hard during both the peer review and failed FA review to create the perfectly balanced lead.
There are other issues to such as his CPGB membership being mentioned in two paragraphs, and the changes make it sound as though it wasn't his hotel which was bombed but some other hotel, etc. The words "newspaper editor" should be kept in the lead seeing as he is notable for being the editor for one of Britain's earliest black newspapers Caribbean News. "British legal expert" also needs to be kept as Billy Strachan also contributed to multiple fields of British law including adoption, matrimonial proceedings, and drink driving, and held numerous high level positions in British courts.
How would you feel if we changed it back to the original and then we call you for final comments near the end of Liewee's GA review? This way we all get say without stepping over eathother. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 05:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Llewee - Since this issue has come up at ANI and at other pages, it should be noted for the GA review that a lot of the sourcing here is dubious in quality and much of it does not appear to be independent of the subject and is essentially communist party-origin. Taking some examples:
This is not to say there is no independent coverage at all of Strachan, but I think an article written based on independent sources would probably be quite different (but way more NPOV) than the present one. FOARP ( talk) 10:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Llewee I looked in yesterday and didn't have time to type this up there, so will add it here. There are also close-paraphrasing and source-to-text integrity issues:
That wording is sourced to Sherwood's own paper, yet it is copy-pasted from one of the few independent and reliable sources used in the article, page 56 of Stephen Bourne's book (you can borrow the book at archive.org and read pages 54 to 57 for the entry on Strachan).
I checked all of the Bourne content, and also found source-to-text integrity problems:
So I suspect some of the content comes from places other than what it is sourced to, and a closer look at source-to-text integrity and close paraphrasing or copyvio is warranted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
And an example of puffery: the article cites this content (in an awkward called-out section):
... to Meddick and Horsley, a writer for a British communist tabloid. This source calls it a "remarkable achievement", as does this source. Neither calls it "rare", and yet this statement is summarized in the lead as (emphasis added):
It remains to be verified if the "extremely rare" comes from Meddick, not an independent source as described at the ANI, or if it is original research. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This kind of content should not be sourced to a British communist tabloid: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Nor this:
.. which is not attributed to the British tabloid, although the need to do so, and to use Horsley more carefully was pointed out by Z1720 and Mujinga back in May. Horsley and the Morning Star are still used quite extensively, and without attribution. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
References