Talk:Mike Gapes

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gapes (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Gapes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: there are some comments below that should be addressed before we move on with the last part of the GA review. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for your comments! I have trimmed and summarised the political views section, so hopefully, it doesn't read as disjointed anymore. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That section looks a lot better, thanks for making those changes. More comments coming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: just a couple more changes to make (see Prose and Sources), then I'll do my own run-through for the nitpicky stuff, and then we'll be just about there! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was his change of party removed from the lead, if his party membership is in the lede then all of them should be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was, his change of party is still in the lead as of the latest revision to the article (and the previous dozen I checked). Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

[[1]] looks like it removes it. Ahh its mentioned twice in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: let me know when you have finished making edits and I will do the final review for pass/fail GA standard. We're close to done I'd say! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for being so patient with me! I think I have finished my edits now 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All done! This article passes GA standard. Congratulations to you and to everyone else who worked on it. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:30, 30 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.	There are some issues with uncited sentences - the list of countries he's traveled to as MP, the 1983 election loss. The paragraph about 2010 re-election and having to step down as chair is also uncited. "In 2007, the committee reported..." - unclear which committee is being referred to. Made final set of tweaks and changes. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass.
	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).	The ProgressOnline source 404s, though the archive version works. If you can find a new non-archive link that would be great, otherwise tag it as a dead link. Same with politics.co.uk The DODS people source doesn't work either in original or archived form. Please fix or remove the information cited to it. The Jewish Chronicle, looking through previous discussions in the RSN, should probably be noted in the text - i.e. "In such and such year, Gapes was described by the Jewish Chronicle as being targeted by so and so..." HuffPost is probably ok as it is not a "contributor" piece. Current source 48 ("agonizing every day") needs to be given its source (the Independent). Issues addressed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass - no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up a couple things, which are clearly copying from Wikipedia, and a few long quotations which are appropriate and adequately cited. Manual spot check looks good. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This comment covers 3a, 3b, and 4: I think this article has issues with focus and coverage. Like many articles about political figures, it seems to include a lot of information included simply because the information exists. In other words, WP:SUMMARY style and balance are not well considered throughout. The section on political views are particularly subject to this tendency. The sections on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the House of Lords just appear to regurgitate statements of Gapes without context. I found a number of articles of Gapes talking about other topics which are not included - not that they should be! The article is not a forum for all of Gapes' political views to be listed comprehensively - in any case that's probably not possible. If there is more broad summary or analysis of Gapes' political orientation, that would be more helpful - the section on Corbyn is better than the others, for instance. An article like David Watts Morgan or Bill Bowman (Scottish politician) might be helpful as an example. The idea is to turn the article from a disjointed series of statements into a more readable and summarized encyclopedic account of this individual. Issue mostly addressed, I'll do final cleanup in my own runthrough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See above
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Infobox image is fine. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there no other images of Gapes available? Not at a constituency meeting, or meeting with the Dalai Lama? I understand it could be tough, but the article is not very well-illustrated at present, so any relevant images, even if not of Gapes himself, would be good to add. I see one on Commons of him at a Foreign Affairs briefing (Richard Ottaway MP, Bob Ainsworth MP, Mike Gapes MP (left to right) (8141325619).jpg) that could work. Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

British MP Michael John Gapes. Baileys not included.

• ... that British MP Mike Gapes (pictured) became a source of left-wing mockery after a 2017 anti-Brexit speech he gave explaining how Baileys was made went viral? Source: “I’ve been through a divorce. I know what divorces are like”: Mike Gapes on the pain of leaving Labour
• ALT1 ... that a pro-Brexit explanation of how Baileys is made given by British MP Mike Gapes (pictured) was described as being "infinitely memeable" and giving him a "bizarre online infamy"? Source: “I’ve been through a divorce. I know what divorces are like”: Mike Gapes on the pain of leaving Labour

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Harriet Amelia Folsom

Improved to Good Article status by AFreshStart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi AFreshStart. I don't see that the article states that he "became a source of left-wing mockery" because of the Baileys speech, nor that it "went viral". Could you either tweak the article - assuming the sources support this - or tweak the hook? (Eg 'that British MP Mike Gapes' (pictured) pro-Brexit explanation of how Baileys is made was described as being "infinitely memeable" and giving him "bizarre online infamy"' or similar.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The hook is true, but you're right; it isn't fully supported by the source. I'd definitely support your tweaked hook wording as an alternative, thank you! 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I have tweaked it a bit and listed it as ALT1, and tweaked the article to explicitly match it. I believe that having become so involved in producing the hook I now need to step back and allow another editor to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: please remember that hooks must be accurate, neutral, and not unduly focused on negative aspects of living people. DYK is not the place to mock, tease, or shame living people, even if reliable sources have done so. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed to check ALT1 and recent article changes. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with ALT1 (interesting, cited, and neutral), and the article improvements since Dec. 1 check out. Good to go with ALT1! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Was the DYK accurate?

I suppose it's too late now that it's already up, but based on everything about Gapes' feelings towards Brexit in general, helping form a political party with basically the sole goal of overturning Brexit, what he said in the Bailey's speech being that Brexit would hinder that unity needed to create Bailey's, and even how it was reported on at the time, wasn't it a very anti-Brexit speech rather than pro-Brexit as mentioned in the DYK? Kensai97 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK? Also we do not say it was pro-Brexit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kensai97: The DYK was initially inaccurate. It was previously mentioned as pro-Brexit in the DYK on the front page. Entirely my fault as I wrote that in the hook (see above) – pure typo on my part and I can only apologise. I think I meant to write 'pro-EU' or 'anti-Brexit' and came up with... the exact opposite of what I meant. I did realise as soon as I saw my notification for the DYK that it was inaccurate (I somehow missed it throughout the rest of the process!) but by then the damage had been done. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)