Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll take a look over the next few days and then make some initial comments.
SilkTork *
YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll make some comments as I read through, and then summarise. SilkTork * YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the article title & introduction is still contentions for some. Elizabeth II is a monarch of 16 countries & she's most identified with one of them, the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a very presentable article on a difficult and high profile topic. There have been five previous attempts to get this article acknowledged as a decent article; while each attempt failed, the process itself is useful as it identifies weaknesses and encourages people to make improvements. The main blocks previously were citation issues, which appear to have been resolved. I feel this article is very promising, and this attempt has a very good chance of succeeding. Edit warring and reverting has been an issue recently, and that has to be borne in mind while working on improving the article. If there are edit wars or excessive reverts during this review, then I will close it as a fail.
The article meets most of the GA criteria. The three areas of concern are:
The above three areas are actually quite difficult, and I anticipate this is going to take more than seven days; however, I will put on hold for an initial seven days to see what level of enthusiasm there is to push this forward. I am prepared to get involved and help out. Any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork * YES! 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I just started a new section on the role Elizabeth II has to play. This has been removed. I do not understand all the issues here, so I am not clear on why that was removed. As a general reader I would want and expect some detailed of the roles and duties of Elizabeth II. Let us discuss how to construct information in the article on those duties. SilkTork * YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In her role as the Monarch, Elizabeth is the ceremonial Head of State so oaths of allegiance are made to her, [1] and her image appears on postage stamps, coins, and banknotes. [2] She takes no direct part in Government, and acts of state done in the name of the Crown, or personally performed by her, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made by others, such as the Government, and the Church of England. Her role is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours. Constitutionally, she will act only upon the advice of the Government; her practical functions in that regard are only "to advise, to be consulted, and to warn". [3]
Whenever necessary, she is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, she must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and Kissing Hands, and that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument. [4] In a " hung parliament", in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command most support, but it would usually be the leader of the largest party. [5] [6] According to the Lascelles Principles, if a minority government asked to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the Queen could refuse. When Harold Wilson requested a dissolution late in 1974, the Queen granted his request as Edward Heath had already failed to form a coalition. The resulting general election gave Wilson a small majority. [7] The Queen could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, but the last monarch to remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834. [8]
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Subscription required)
In order to make progress on this in a constructive and harmonious manner, there should be no reverts. It is highly likely that I or someone else will make future edits that will cause concern for one editor or another. Please bring concerns here to the talkpage. I am totally impartial and will listen to advise and rationales. If there is a genuine reason why an edit should not remain, then be assured, it will not remain. But let us discuss it first. SilkTork * YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have checked the history. The Queen's role in government has been in the article from the start. There has been a section or subsection marked Role in government from 2003. In July last year DrKiernan removed that section, based on this comment on the talkpage which generated one response which was fairly neutral. If people wish to apply "The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit," then I don't see how consensus has been achieved by that comment to undo a section that has been in the article for over 6 years. The section has for many years been a viable part of this article. I wasn't even aware there had been such a section, but one of my first observations was that there should be in an article on a monarch some information on the monarch's role - this is fairly basic stuff. We will make more progress on this article if we at this point agree that there will be no reverts. Under DrKiernan comments above I would be entitled to revert his own removal of the Role section as it was a contentious edit done without consensus. However, I would rather we discussed the matter. My observation of the history of this article is that there has sometimes been an inclination for viewpoints to be asserted by reverts rather than open discussion. I would want, during this GA Review, for there to be discussions not reverts. If people feel they are unable to prevent themselves from reverting, please let me know and I will close the Review now. SilkTork * YES! 10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot follow very well what still needs to be fixed. Could you quickly point to what is still left to do? Nergaal ( talk) 16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
There are content issues regarding this article which appear to be unresolved. Unless there is an objection, I will close this review tomorrow and suggest people seek out an uninvolved editor, perhaps from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, to look into the content issues. When the content issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated for GA again. SilkTork * YES! 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll take a look over the next few days and then make some initial comments.
SilkTork *
YES! 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll make some comments as I read through, and then summarise. SilkTork * YES! 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the article title & introduction is still contentions for some. Elizabeth II is a monarch of 16 countries & she's most identified with one of them, the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a very presentable article on a difficult and high profile topic. There have been five previous attempts to get this article acknowledged as a decent article; while each attempt failed, the process itself is useful as it identifies weaknesses and encourages people to make improvements. The main blocks previously were citation issues, which appear to have been resolved. I feel this article is very promising, and this attempt has a very good chance of succeeding. Edit warring and reverting has been an issue recently, and that has to be borne in mind while working on improving the article. If there are edit wars or excessive reverts during this review, then I will close it as a fail.
The article meets most of the GA criteria. The three areas of concern are:
The above three areas are actually quite difficult, and I anticipate this is going to take more than seven days; however, I will put on hold for an initial seven days to see what level of enthusiasm there is to push this forward. I am prepared to get involved and help out. Any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork * YES! 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I just started a new section on the role Elizabeth II has to play. This has been removed. I do not understand all the issues here, so I am not clear on why that was removed. As a general reader I would want and expect some detailed of the roles and duties of Elizabeth II. Let us discuss how to construct information in the article on those duties. SilkTork * YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In her role as the Monarch, Elizabeth is the ceremonial Head of State so oaths of allegiance are made to her, [1] and her image appears on postage stamps, coins, and banknotes. [2] She takes no direct part in Government, and acts of state done in the name of the Crown, or personally performed by her, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made by others, such as the Government, and the Church of England. Her role is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honours. Constitutionally, she will act only upon the advice of the Government; her practical functions in that regard are only "to advise, to be consulted, and to warn". [3]
Whenever necessary, she is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, she must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and Kissing Hands, and that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument. [4] In a " hung parliament", in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command most support, but it would usually be the leader of the largest party. [5] [6] According to the Lascelles Principles, if a minority government asked to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the Queen could refuse. When Harold Wilson requested a dissolution late in 1974, the Queen granted his request as Edward Heath had already failed to form a coalition. The resulting general election gave Wilson a small majority. [7] The Queen could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, but the last monarch to remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834. [8]
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Subscription required)
In order to make progress on this in a constructive and harmonious manner, there should be no reverts. It is highly likely that I or someone else will make future edits that will cause concern for one editor or another. Please bring concerns here to the talkpage. I am totally impartial and will listen to advise and rationales. If there is a genuine reason why an edit should not remain, then be assured, it will not remain. But let us discuss it first. SilkTork * YES! 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have checked the history. The Queen's role in government has been in the article from the start. There has been a section or subsection marked Role in government from 2003. In July last year DrKiernan removed that section, based on this comment on the talkpage which generated one response which was fairly neutral. If people wish to apply "The burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the person who wishes to move away from the present consensus to gain consensus before making a contentious edit," then I don't see how consensus has been achieved by that comment to undo a section that has been in the article for over 6 years. The section has for many years been a viable part of this article. I wasn't even aware there had been such a section, but one of my first observations was that there should be in an article on a monarch some information on the monarch's role - this is fairly basic stuff. We will make more progress on this article if we at this point agree that there will be no reverts. Under DrKiernan comments above I would be entitled to revert his own removal of the Role section as it was a contentious edit done without consensus. However, I would rather we discussed the matter. My observation of the history of this article is that there has sometimes been an inclination for viewpoints to be asserted by reverts rather than open discussion. I would want, during this GA Review, for there to be discussions not reverts. If people feel they are unable to prevent themselves from reverting, please let me know and I will close the Review now. SilkTork * YES! 10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot follow very well what still needs to be fixed. Could you quickly point to what is still left to do? Nergaal ( talk) 16:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
There are content issues regarding this article which appear to be unresolved. Unless there is an objection, I will close this review tomorrow and suggest people seek out an uninvolved editor, perhaps from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, to look into the content issues. When the content issues have been resolved, the article can be nominated for GA again. SilkTork * YES! 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)