Solid article, all my comments have been addressed.
Comments
I think the election results image needs to explain the colours in some manner, whether it's just by describing the Ref. Party's results, the major colours, or all the colours. To a person outside the UK, the various colours don't have the same significance as they do outside.
Much better, but can we have the parentheses as a second sentence? It's long enough that it makes the rest confusing.
"he was also critical when the EU signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade" could this be rephrased? It's not incorrect, but "he was critical of X" reads a lot easier.
I'm wondering if the paragraph beginning "The UK's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty" would fit better in the next subsection. You could then split off a sub-section called "membership" or something, to address the length issue.
I'm not sure if this paragraph really belongs in "Ideology and early growth" because it does not actually deal with the party or its early growth. For that reason, I'd be hesitant about moving it. That being said, I agree it does not sit perfectly where it is currently located.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, how's this. You currently have nine paragraphs in the "Formation" section, six of which are in the "Ideology and early growth". Try it this way: create two sub-sections under "Formation", titled "Background and ideology" and "early growth". "Background and ideology" can contain paragraphs 3, 1, 2, and 4, in that order. "Early growth" can contain the rest, though I would suggest merging paragraph 9 into paragraph 7.
This is totally optional at the GA level, but the last paragraph of "Formation" (para 9 from above) could use a footnote explaining how the MP could remain an MP despite his branch not backing him. In many countries switching parties is enough to make a person lose their seat.
"None were in Northern Ireland, where Goldsmith had established an agreement with the Ulster Unionist Party that he would not stand candidates against them" I find this rather confusing, to be honest...probably easier to say "Goldsmith had established...under the terms of which..."
I've gone with the following: "None of these candidates were in Northern Ireland. This was because Goldsmith had made an agreement with Northern Ireland's
Ulster Unionist Party that he would not field any candidates against them if their one MEP joined his
Europe of Nations grouping in the European Parliament, something that ensured that the grouping remained large enough to retain its Parliamentary funding.". What do you think of this change?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
" the issue of EU fishing quotas." What might that issue be?
"cannot be considered the only factor." Rather heavy use of editorial voice...
I've changed this sentence to the following: "The reasons for their electoral decline were many and the impact of the Referendum Party was not the only factor". Hopefully this deals with the issue of editorial voice.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
You use "et al" in one case, but spell out four authors in another: why? If there's four of them, maybe shorten to "a paper" or "scholars".
I'm wondering about the use Zac Goldsmith's statement; he wouldn't be a reliable source in any case, and he has an obvious conflict of interest...were there any responses to his statement?
Well...yes, the source is reliably for reporting his statement, but the fact remains that he is essentially saying "look my dad was a bigger deal than everybody thinks he is". Even so, we could report it if independent commentators had taken any note of his opinion; as is, though, I'd just remove it.
Honestly I'd remove that external link; with very little in the article body about that "successor", I'm not sure it serves much purpose, and indeed may be seen as giving that party undue attention.
Okay, I think I'm done here: solidly written article throughout, interesting and well-presented material as always, just these quibbles to be dealt with. But I'm more or less starting my Wikibreak after this edit (I actually thought I'd have to leave a few hours ago) so passing may have to wait until I come back in a few days' time. Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I think that I've responded to everything,
Vanamonde. Many thanks for taking the time to review this article and offer your thoughts. Hope that your Wikibreak was enjoyable and constructive!
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Solid article, all my comments have been addressed.
Comments
I think the election results image needs to explain the colours in some manner, whether it's just by describing the Ref. Party's results, the major colours, or all the colours. To a person outside the UK, the various colours don't have the same significance as they do outside.
Much better, but can we have the parentheses as a second sentence? It's long enough that it makes the rest confusing.
"he was also critical when the EU signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade" could this be rephrased? It's not incorrect, but "he was critical of X" reads a lot easier.
I'm wondering if the paragraph beginning "The UK's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty" would fit better in the next subsection. You could then split off a sub-section called "membership" or something, to address the length issue.
I'm not sure if this paragraph really belongs in "Ideology and early growth" because it does not actually deal with the party or its early growth. For that reason, I'd be hesitant about moving it. That being said, I agree it does not sit perfectly where it is currently located.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, how's this. You currently have nine paragraphs in the "Formation" section, six of which are in the "Ideology and early growth". Try it this way: create two sub-sections under "Formation", titled "Background and ideology" and "early growth". "Background and ideology" can contain paragraphs 3, 1, 2, and 4, in that order. "Early growth" can contain the rest, though I would suggest merging paragraph 9 into paragraph 7.
This is totally optional at the GA level, but the last paragraph of "Formation" (para 9 from above) could use a footnote explaining how the MP could remain an MP despite his branch not backing him. In many countries switching parties is enough to make a person lose their seat.
"None were in Northern Ireland, where Goldsmith had established an agreement with the Ulster Unionist Party that he would not stand candidates against them" I find this rather confusing, to be honest...probably easier to say "Goldsmith had established...under the terms of which..."
I've gone with the following: "None of these candidates were in Northern Ireland. This was because Goldsmith had made an agreement with Northern Ireland's
Ulster Unionist Party that he would not field any candidates against them if their one MEP joined his
Europe of Nations grouping in the European Parliament, something that ensured that the grouping remained large enough to retain its Parliamentary funding.". What do you think of this change?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
" the issue of EU fishing quotas." What might that issue be?
"cannot be considered the only factor." Rather heavy use of editorial voice...
I've changed this sentence to the following: "The reasons for their electoral decline were many and the impact of the Referendum Party was not the only factor". Hopefully this deals with the issue of editorial voice.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
You use "et al" in one case, but spell out four authors in another: why? If there's four of them, maybe shorten to "a paper" or "scholars".
I'm wondering about the use Zac Goldsmith's statement; he wouldn't be a reliable source in any case, and he has an obvious conflict of interest...were there any responses to his statement?
Well...yes, the source is reliably for reporting his statement, but the fact remains that he is essentially saying "look my dad was a bigger deal than everybody thinks he is". Even so, we could report it if independent commentators had taken any note of his opinion; as is, though, I'd just remove it.
Honestly I'd remove that external link; with very little in the article body about that "successor", I'm not sure it serves much purpose, and indeed may be seen as giving that party undue attention.
Okay, I think I'm done here: solidly written article throughout, interesting and well-presented material as always, just these quibbles to be dealt with. But I'm more or less starting my Wikibreak after this edit (I actually thought I'd have to leave a few hours ago) so passing may have to wait until I come back in a few days' time. Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I think that I've responded to everything,
Vanamonde. Many thanks for taking the time to review this article and offer your thoughts. Hope that your Wikibreak was enjoyable and constructive!
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply