Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Llewee ( talk · contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a decent quality article. I will suggest a few pointers about how it could be improved. Pease use the Done template or strikethrough to indicate that an issue has been dealt with. Add any questions or comments after each point.--
Llewee (
talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look to see if their are anymore issues once these have been dealt with.
I think I've had a go at this but not too sure that I've corrected everything
I'd not heard of these agreements before but I'm not so sure that it would be relevant on here unless they were official coalitions. I can add these though depending on what you think.
Thanks Michaeldble ( talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Michaeldble Thank you for responding to my suggestions. You have dealt with some of the issues with the formatting of sources. However, page numbers should not be included in a title of a source. There are page and pages sections in the form for editing the reference. For instance formatting that looks like this:
{{Cite web |last=Sharp |first=Caroline |date=1 November 2002 |title=School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research |url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/1318/44414.pdf#:~:text=The%20official%20school%20starting%20age%20in%20England%20and,of%20the%20year%20in%20which%20they%20become%20five. |page=3 }}
Results in:
Sharp, Caroline (1 November 2002). "School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research" (PDF). p. 3.
On the question of the agreements, the Bute House Agreement, which is the Scottish one, seems to be effectively a coalition in all but name with the minor party having ministers in the government so I think should be included. In the Welsh cases, agreements seem to be fairly common and probably come with the territory of minority governments, perhaps just add foot notes referencing them?-- Llewee ( talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I have put the article through the earwig Copyvio detector (see results here https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Electoral_history_of_the_Labour_Party_%28UK%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0). The only source their was any concern about was https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf#page=11 . I think it mainly picked up formal titles and phrasing which is fairly generic. However, you might want to look at rewording text to reduce crossover.-- Llewee ( talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 12:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Michaeldble ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: No previous DYK noms. Passed GA recently. Copyvio check passes. Quick question though about the hook, "earned fewer votes" doesn't feel like the typical language used. I would have expected the phrase "received fewer votes". Not a dealbreaker in anyway, it just catches me off guard and wanted to flag it. Might be worthwhile sticking an alt here with it and allow the promoter to pick their preferred. Seddon talk 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Llewee ( talk · contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a decent quality article. I will suggest a few pointers about how it could be improved. Pease use the Done template or strikethrough to indicate that an issue has been dealt with. Add any questions or comments after each point.--
Llewee (
talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look to see if their are anymore issues once these have been dealt with.
I think I've had a go at this but not too sure that I've corrected everything
I'd not heard of these agreements before but I'm not so sure that it would be relevant on here unless they were official coalitions. I can add these though depending on what you think.
Thanks Michaeldble ( talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Michaeldble Thank you for responding to my suggestions. You have dealt with some of the issues with the formatting of sources. However, page numbers should not be included in a title of a source. There are page and pages sections in the form for editing the reference. For instance formatting that looks like this:
{{Cite web |last=Sharp |first=Caroline |date=1 November 2002 |title=School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research |url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/1318/44414.pdf#:~:text=The%20official%20school%20starting%20age%20in%20England%20and,of%20the%20year%20in%20which%20they%20become%20five. |page=3 }}
Results in:
Sharp, Caroline (1 November 2002). "School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research" (PDF). p. 3.
On the question of the agreements, the Bute House Agreement, which is the Scottish one, seems to be effectively a coalition in all but name with the minor party having ministers in the government so I think should be included. In the Welsh cases, agreements seem to be fairly common and probably come with the territory of minority governments, perhaps just add foot notes referencing them?-- Llewee ( talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I have put the article through the earwig Copyvio detector (see results here https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Electoral_history_of_the_Labour_Party_%28UK%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0). The only source their was any concern about was https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf#page=11 . I think it mainly picked up formal titles and phrasing which is fairly generic. However, you might want to look at rewording text to reduce crossover.-- Llewee ( talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 12:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Michaeldble ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: No previous DYK noms. Passed GA recently. Copyvio check passes. Quick question though about the hook, "earned fewer votes" doesn't feel like the typical language used. I would have expected the phrase "received fewer votes". Not a dealbreaker in anyway, it just catches me off guard and wanted to flag it. Might be worthwhile sticking an alt here with it and allow the promoter to pick their preferred. Seddon talk 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)