This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
London Forum (far-right group) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | London Forum (far-right group) 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: November 16, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from London Forum (far-right group) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a look-see. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
05:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I was initially planning to hold off on a spelling/grammar review until the end, but I figure that I should just put it down now so that the edits can be made sooner rather than having to wait again after a second round of edits is made. Here we go:
Aside from the above, I don't see any major grammar/syntax errors. Likewise, I don't see any spelling errors. After the lead is re-written (per below), I'll give it a look, and update to describe any copyediting I might suggest. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The clause should probably be rephrased to emphasize who is actually saying that. The answer, of course, is Vice UK (Vice should work as well). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a valid reference list at the end. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There are sources that can be used to verify all of the details. However, there are a number of things I'm finding that have failed verification in my first read through the article and its sources.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Regarding the phrase the Hope not Hate source doesn't actually say what he's "more commonly" known as. It presents a nickname, but it would be a bit of extrapolation to make the claim that the nickname is his more commonly known name. The Vice source is similarly unhelful in establishing what he's more commonly known as, though it does list a nickname. It might be better to say "... known also as Jez Turner)..." so that we don't run into novel interpretation issues. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | WP:EARWIG was checked. The article looks good. There was a tad flagged, but the vast majority was in quotes and the remaining aspect seems to be spurious. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Looks like it has decently broad coverage of the group's activities. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is focused on London Forum and its activities. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I left this unreviewed on my first read through because I was asking for a few content changes, and I wanted to see how they would turn out. At this point, on my second read through, the article appears to be almost entirely written from a neutral point-of-view. The sole exception of is picture caption mentioned below, which fails verification and has associated
WP:DUE concerns relating to the extent to which the London Forum's members actually draw from Mosley himself (as opposed to other far-right figures). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable, with no recent evidence of an edit war. The article has not been edited since February 2021. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The picture of
Millennial Woes is likely a copyvio. I've nominated it for deletion on commons. In the meantime, it would be best to find another photograph. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There are suitable images for inclusion. It may be worth it to throw in the logos of the BUF or some other related images. Since these images exist, it would be better for the article to put them in rather for there to be none.
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold as of 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
We are the only publication regularly to investigate and analyse the far right's ideological powerhouse, the New Right, and to expose the groups that bridge the fascist and Tory right such as the London Forum and Traditional Britain Group.
Some of the most controversial far-right speakers from around the world have addressed forum meetings. Regular speakers include David Irving, the notorious Holocaust denier; veteran British fascist Richard Edmonds of the National Front (NF); and Alex Davies, one of the founders of banned Nazi terror gang National Action (NA). Talks in the past have been on topics such as "National Socialism and the Green Movement," "Straightening out the White Man's thinking," and "Was Jesus a Nazi?"
Improved to GA status by AFreshStart ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
London Forum (far-right group) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | London Forum (far-right group) 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: November 16, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from London Forum (far-right group) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a look-see. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
05:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I was initially planning to hold off on a spelling/grammar review until the end, but I figure that I should just put it down now so that the edits can be made sooner rather than having to wait again after a second round of edits is made. Here we go:
Aside from the above, I don't see any major grammar/syntax errors. Likewise, I don't see any spelling errors. After the lead is re-written (per below), I'll give it a look, and update to describe any copyediting I might suggest. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The clause should probably be rephrased to emphasize who is actually saying that. The answer, of course, is Vice UK (Vice should work as well). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a valid reference list at the end. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There are sources that can be used to verify all of the details. However, there are a number of things I'm finding that have failed verification in my first read through the article and its sources.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Regarding the phrase the Hope not Hate source doesn't actually say what he's "more commonly" known as. It presents a nickname, but it would be a bit of extrapolation to make the claim that the nickname is his more commonly known name. The Vice source is similarly unhelful in establishing what he's more commonly known as, though it does list a nickname. It might be better to say "... known also as Jez Turner)..." so that we don't run into novel interpretation issues. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | WP:EARWIG was checked. The article looks good. There was a tad flagged, but the vast majority was in quotes and the remaining aspect seems to be spurious. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Looks like it has decently broad coverage of the group's activities. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is focused on London Forum and its activities. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I left this unreviewed on my first read through because I was asking for a few content changes, and I wanted to see how they would turn out. At this point, on my second read through, the article appears to be almost entirely written from a neutral point-of-view. The sole exception of is picture caption mentioned below, which fails verification and has associated
WP:DUE concerns relating to the extent to which the London Forum's members actually draw from Mosley himself (as opposed to other far-right figures). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable, with no recent evidence of an edit war. The article has not been edited since February 2021. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The picture of
Millennial Woes is likely a copyvio. I've nominated it for deletion on commons. In the meantime, it would be best to find another photograph. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There are suitable images for inclusion. It may be worth it to throw in the logos of the BUF or some other related images. Since these images exist, it would be better for the article to put them in rather for there to be none.
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold as of 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
We are the only publication regularly to investigate and analyse the far right's ideological powerhouse, the New Right, and to expose the groups that bridge the fascist and Tory right such as the London Forum and Traditional Britain Group.
Some of the most controversial far-right speakers from around the world have addressed forum meetings. Regular speakers include David Irving, the notorious Holocaust denier; veteran British fascist Richard Edmonds of the National Front (NF); and Alex Davies, one of the founders of banned Nazi terror gang National Action (NA). Talks in the past have been on topics such as "National Socialism and the Green Movement," "Straightening out the White Man's thinking," and "Was Jesus a Nazi?"
Improved to GA status by AFreshStart ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC).