![]() | Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party was a Social sciences and society 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have left the point about the UUUC nomination strategy in as it is relevant however I removed the section about West Belfast being the strongest Nationalist seat in NI as at that point in time it was debatable (in the previous years assembly elections constituencies in the West had a higher Nationalist %) Additionally the following section in bold has been removed:
The party also obtained more seats in 1975 in the elections to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention than the DUP (in part due to that latter underestimating their support and not always putting up enough candidates in some areas of electoral strength) "in part due to that latter underestimating their support and not always putting up enough candidates in some areas of electoral strength"
This is untrue. The DUP had 1 candidate more than Vanguard overall and contested every seat (there was no VUPP candidate in West Belfast.) VUPP were also better at attracting transfers from the UUP and other Unionist candidates. The only seat in which nominations may have made a difference was in North Antrim and there I don't believe it did. It's true that DUP had 3 candidates and 4.2 quotas but this is attributable to the party leader Ian Paisley standing there. Many VUPP supporters voted for him then cast their second preference for VUPP as the transfer patterns show. Furthermore this was somewhat counterbalanced by the situation in the neighbouring Londonderry constituency where, if VUPP had balanced better, they would have won an extra seat at the expense of the DUP.
Valenciano 11:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting subject and the article is pretty well written, but it has NO references and needs to be wikified.
I'll try to wikify it, but someone needs to come up with some references before an overzealous admin comes along and blanks it. T L Miles 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks brilliant now, Valenciano ! Thanks. T L Miles 14:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Although the article has some good solid stuff in it, I think that at present it is a fair way off from GA standard, and needs a lot of further work.
I am putting the article on hold to give editors the chance to address these issues. My own feeling is that it’ll probably take rather more than seven days to get the article up to GA, but it’s worth a try. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The article fails at this point, the main editor having acknowledged that it will take a considerable time to address all the points raised in the general review above. I am sure that if it is renominated after these matters have been attended to, it will get a positive reception.
In relation to the GA criteria:-
I look forward to seeing the article back at GAN in the near future. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Frickeg ( talk · contribs) 03:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article and there's a decent amount of information included. However, there are significant problems with style, referencing, coverage and NPOV that are likely to take longer than a week to address, and for this reason I am failing the article for now. There are also a number of points from the first GA review in May 2008 that have not been addressed.
The article as a whole needs a very thorough copyedit, references need formatting and the reference list could do with both consolidation and expansion - consolidating some of the diverse sources a little (since I'm sure many of them cite similar things; this may be a consequences of duplication of sources, in which case that needs addressing too), and diversifying to include some more secondary texts. Finally and most importantly, the article needs some attention for completeness since it is sometimes quite fragmentary in the history it gives, and idiosyncratic in the attention given to certain events. It needs quite a bit of work, but I hope to see it at GAN again in the future. Frickeg ( talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that the alleged use of "an honour guard and a common salute" is woefully insufficient grounds for calling a party "fascist". Is there more than that? If not the accusation would appear to be just a scurrilous insult, and should be removed Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I remember of having read somewhere that Vanguard supported Ulster independence or something similar; anybody know something about that (to put in the article, it it is is the case)?-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party was a Social sciences and society 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have left the point about the UUUC nomination strategy in as it is relevant however I removed the section about West Belfast being the strongest Nationalist seat in NI as at that point in time it was debatable (in the previous years assembly elections constituencies in the West had a higher Nationalist %) Additionally the following section in bold has been removed:
The party also obtained more seats in 1975 in the elections to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention than the DUP (in part due to that latter underestimating their support and not always putting up enough candidates in some areas of electoral strength) "in part due to that latter underestimating their support and not always putting up enough candidates in some areas of electoral strength"
This is untrue. The DUP had 1 candidate more than Vanguard overall and contested every seat (there was no VUPP candidate in West Belfast.) VUPP were also better at attracting transfers from the UUP and other Unionist candidates. The only seat in which nominations may have made a difference was in North Antrim and there I don't believe it did. It's true that DUP had 3 candidates and 4.2 quotas but this is attributable to the party leader Ian Paisley standing there. Many VUPP supporters voted for him then cast their second preference for VUPP as the transfer patterns show. Furthermore this was somewhat counterbalanced by the situation in the neighbouring Londonderry constituency where, if VUPP had balanced better, they would have won an extra seat at the expense of the DUP.
Valenciano 11:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting subject and the article is pretty well written, but it has NO references and needs to be wikified.
I'll try to wikify it, but someone needs to come up with some references before an overzealous admin comes along and blanks it. T L Miles 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks brilliant now, Valenciano ! Thanks. T L Miles 14:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Although the article has some good solid stuff in it, I think that at present it is a fair way off from GA standard, and needs a lot of further work.
I am putting the article on hold to give editors the chance to address these issues. My own feeling is that it’ll probably take rather more than seven days to get the article up to GA, but it’s worth a try. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The article fails at this point, the main editor having acknowledged that it will take a considerable time to address all the points raised in the general review above. I am sure that if it is renominated after these matters have been attended to, it will get a positive reception.
In relation to the GA criteria:-
I look forward to seeing the article back at GAN in the near future. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Frickeg ( talk · contribs) 03:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article and there's a decent amount of information included. However, there are significant problems with style, referencing, coverage and NPOV that are likely to take longer than a week to address, and for this reason I am failing the article for now. There are also a number of points from the first GA review in May 2008 that have not been addressed.
The article as a whole needs a very thorough copyedit, references need formatting and the reference list could do with both consolidation and expansion - consolidating some of the diverse sources a little (since I'm sure many of them cite similar things; this may be a consequences of duplication of sources, in which case that needs addressing too), and diversifying to include some more secondary texts. Finally and most importantly, the article needs some attention for completeness since it is sometimes quite fragmentary in the history it gives, and idiosyncratic in the attention given to certain events. It needs quite a bit of work, but I hope to see it at GAN again in the future. Frickeg ( talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that the alleged use of "an honour guard and a common salute" is woefully insufficient grounds for calling a party "fascist". Is there more than that? If not the accusation would appear to be just a scurrilous insult, and should be removed Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I remember of having read somewhere that Vanguard supported Ulster independence or something similar; anybody know something about that (to put in the article, it it is is the case)?-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)