Talk:Pro-EU leaflet/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope to start on this some time in the next few days. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

url-status

First, a technical note. As I view the article, I see one instance of {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) and eight of {{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). That's nine syntax errors.

When you edit the relevant section of the article, you're likely to be told Script warning: One or more {{cite news/journal}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

Unless you also provide a Wayback Machine or other archive link, you shouldn't specify url-status=live (see Template:Citation/doc#URL). Please remove these superfluous instances of "url-status=live" (or of course add relevant archive links, so that the instances will be superfluous no longer). -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Now fixed; thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Conclusions of the University of Sheffield

(No they weren't.)

I quote:

In February 2019, the University of Sheffield published an analysis of the impact on the British public of exposure to the leaflet, and concluded that it led to a decrease of three percentage points in the probability of an individual voting to leave in the referendum.

I parse this as entailing:

In February 2019:

1. the University of Sheffield published an analysis of the impact on the British public of exposure to the leaflet,
2. the University of Sheffield concluded that exposure to the leaflet led to a decrease of three percentage points in the probability of an individual voting to leave in the referendum.

I see no evidence for the second. The author derived conclusions from the analysis. The university did not. Not even the university's Department of Economics derived a conclusion, as far as I know.

Nominator, please rethink and reword. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Now fixed; thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Pickard

This WP article makes considerable use of a paper by Pickard:

• "Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield summarised ..."
• "...researched by Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield"
• "Pickard, Henry (26 January 2018). 'How the government's pro-remain leaflet shaped the EU referendum' ..."

However, on both the front cover and page one of Pickard's paper, I read "Harry Pickard". -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

PS a paper by Pickard and also an announcement about this paper. But both the paper and the announcement say "Harry", so my comment above is still valid. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Now fixed; thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

First run-through

Nominator, some fairly straightforward (I think) comments, requests, suggestions. You are of course entirely free to disagree. But if/where you'd like to comment, please don't do so within the following set; instead, please do so below it.

1. Introduction, first para: This bizarrely (amusingly?) gives the impression that it's the EU that's known as Brexit. Better rejuggle the ingredients of this one sentence.
2. Introduction, last para: I'd split the paragraph immediately before "In February 2019".
3. The introduction seems to me to have some unnecessary detail. As examples, we don't need, I think, to read here that the leaflet has six sections, or that the deliverer was the Royal Mail.
4. "Background", first para: Yes, Cameron has already been mentioned, but it might still be better to call him "David Cameron" the first time he's mentioned in this new section.
5. "Background", first para: "given them a working majority of 12 seats" → "giving them a working majority of 12 seats"
6. "Contents", photograph: This photo (we learn if we bother to click on it, etc) is by somebody named Fielding, and Fielding is not Page. If it were Page, then "Using this photograph [...]"; but as it isn't, perhaps "Using a photograph similar to this one [...]" or some other wording that will make it clear that no, this isn't the problematic photo, yet it's more than just some arbitrarily chosen photo of Felixstowe.
7. "Contents", final sentence: "the last referendum" → "the previous referendum"
8. "Reactions", first paragraph. If it's worth saying that Farage condemned the thing as "full of lies", it might be worth saying what one or two of these alleged lies were. I looked at the cited (BBC) source, and it doesn't specify. (It's not clear from the article that anyone aside from the leaflet's authors would have even read it. But ... Farage....)
9. "Reactions", final sentence: Simply, how impressed should the reader be by 221 thou? Perhaps something like "the third-greatest number to have signed such a petition", or whatever's appropriate. (NB "third-greatest" is merely a product of my imagination.) Incidentally, the bit about 100 thou triggering a debate implies to me that this isn't just any old petition but instead is one of those that go through the website petition.parliament.uk (to which I cannot link). I don't know the name for these, but suspect that they do have a name and that there's a Wikipedia article about them.
10. "Analysis", second para: "did not develop on issues related to security" → "did not {address / deal with / elaborate on / etc} issues related to security"
11. "Impact": "to voting intentions" → "on voting intentions"
12. "Impact": "groups that had been exposed to few other sources of information, such as women [...]": I read this part of the WP article as ambiguous, but interpretable as saying that women, "those on low incomes", and "the risk averse" were "groups that had been exposed to few other sources of information". But that's not what I get from the relevant part (pp. 19–20) of Pickard's paper, which is that he removed those participants who had been at least fairly well exposed (participants who I suppose would have included plenty of women, etc), and then made subgroups (women, etc) among the less well exposed. I may have misread Pickard, this WP article, or both. If so, feel free to say so. But perhaps some rewording would be helpful.

-- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Now all fixed; thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Paying for it

Some space is, properly, given in the article to the cost of the leaflet to British taxpayers, and to the indignation that this incurred. However, here's a comment from a barrister on payment:

. . . the document ‘Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK’ (the leaflet) was issued to every household in the UK. This was a requirement of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and because it was placed in legislation this secured sufficient resources for this document. -- Abiodun Michael Olatokun, "The journey to legal capability: Challenges for public law from public legal education", International Journal of Public Legal Education vol 6 (2022). doi:10.19164/ijple.v6i1.1294

This may be worth a mention. (Incidentally, the article in its current state doesn't seem to mention the European Union Referendum Act 2015.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually I can't find this in the act. (The closest thing I find is this, which sounds very different.) It would be better not to add a version of what AMO writes than to add it in a credulous and carefree way. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

OK as is. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of sources

Pickard's announcement

Pickard, Henry (26 January 2018). "How the government's pro-remain leaflet shaped the EU referendum". University of Sheffield. (The link provided to it is now dead; the page can be found here.)

The author's name isn't "Henry Pickard"; it's "Harry Pickard". To say that it's published by "University of Sheffield" isn't wrong, but it should really be "Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute".

This is currently cited three times. Let's look at all three.

• Pickard: "sent to all UK households between the 11-13th April 2016"
• Cited as saying: "The first wave was sent to households in England between 11 and 13 April"

But the UK isn't just England. (Incidentally, "UK" could well have been Pickard's little slip. But if it was, then that web page shouldn't have been cited for this particular purpose.)

• Pickard: "a glossy 16-page document"
• Cited as saying: "Including its front and back covers, the leaflet is 16 pages long."

The bit about 16 including the covers is an addition. (Actually this shouldn't need any citation: the leaflet is a good source about such an attribute of itself.)

• Pickard (NB writing in January 2018): "My new research provides evidence that the leaflet did indeed have a significant impact on individual vote preference."
• Cited as saying: "The impact of the leaflet [on] voting intentions was researched by Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield and published in 2019."

Year of publication is of course an addition. This reference could be moved immediately after "Sheffield". Simpler and better: skip the reference to this announcement, and instead refer at the end of the sentence to Pickard's 2019 publication. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

UKCE response

Various (8 April 2016). "Response to Government leaflet from the UK in a Changing Europe". London: UK in a Changing Europe. here.

This is currently cited four times. Let's look at all four.

• Simon Hix: "Looks to me like quite an effective piece of rhetoric"
• Cited as saying: "Political scientist Simon Hix described the leaflet as an 'effective piece of rhetoric'"; also, "political scientist Simon Hix called it an 'effective piece of rhetoric'"

(That's two of the four citations together.) Unsurprisingly, Hix doesn't directly rate its effectiveness (which would require an empirical study, such as Pickard's). He hedges ("looks to me like", "quite"). This is unlikely to have been mere throat-clearing: Hix would, I presume, have had the opportunity to phrase this as he wished. The article's summary drops such nuance, and is much cruder than the original.

• Web page says: "UK in a Changing Europe, director, Professor Anand Menon, said: “The government’s leaflet illustrates all too clearly why voters won’t get all the facts from anyone engaged on one side of the debate or the other. The document is factual but partial. It doesn’t tell the whole story, and deliberately so. It’s probably true, for instance, that at least three million jobs are linked to exports to the EU. That doesn’t mean those jobs would necessarily cease to exist if we left."
• Cited as saying: "UK in a Changing Europe [...] described the leaflet as 'factual but partial'. The organisation explained, for example, that, while it was 'probably true' that exports of the EU were linked to more than three million jobs, they did not believe that these jobs would necessarily cease to exist after Brexit."

But UK in a Changing Europe attributed all of this to its director, Anand Menon, who may or may not have been writing on behalf of the organization.

• Whitman: “There’s a bit of a disconnect between the tick boxes on the final page and the contents. The ‘security’ argument that Cameron’s pushed hard on, and which gets a tick, isn’t really developed in the body of the booklet.”
• Cited as saying: "Academic and media commentator Richard G. Whitman felt that the leaflet's contents did not develop on issues related to security, despite Cameron's having pushed hard on the argument."

Whitman here isn't as clear as he could have been; but he seems to me to be primarily criticizing the assembly of the leaflet. I suppose the summary here is OK, though it's hard for me to understand and looks to me like the product of insufficient digestion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A Guardian article

Mason, Rowena; Stewart, Heather; Grierson, Jamie (7 April 2016). "£9m pro-EU leaflet is necessary and right, says Cameron". The Guardian.

This is cited four times. One citation doesn't seem problematic. The other three are very close to each other:

• Guardian article: "It includes sections on the economy, immigration control and overseas travel, and warns that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'."
• Cited as saying: The leaflet "warns the British public that Brexit would [...] lead to a decade or more of uncertainty." Also, "The fourth section of the pamphlet lists the uncertainties that Brexit would cause and warns that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'." Also, "the leaflet argues that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'."

In the first of these three, "a decade or more of uncertainty" should be in quotation marks. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A BBC article

Landale, James (7 April 2016). "EU referendum: Government to spend £9m on leaflets to every home". London: BBC News.

This is cited five times. Three of the five citations don't seem problematic. As for the other two:

• BBC article: Government officials "said internal opinion polls suggested 85% of people wanted the government to provide more information"
• Cited as saying: "After independent polling revealed that 85% of the British public wanted more information before they made their decision, on 6 April the government announced that it would send a leaflet to households across the UK, explaining why remaining in the EU was the best choice for the UK."

Internal polls aren't independent polls (if anything, they're the reverse). (And the people wanted more information not just from any "RS" but from the government.)

• BBC article: The leaflet "claims that 'over three million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU'"
• Cited as saying: "The second [section of the leaflet] covers the economic strengths of remaining in the EU—such as the three million jobs linked to exports to the EU"

"Linked to exports to the EU" really should be in quotation marks: not only to avoid an (arguably somewhat nitpicky) claim of plagiarism, but also because "linked to" is vague (as Angus Armstrong points out in the "UK in a Changing Europe" page that's cited elsewhere). -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for your very thorough review. I believe that I have implemented all of your suggestions, but please let me know if you spot any that I've missed, or if you have any other feedback. Thanks again. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up

Three/four days ago, I decided that I should investigate the use of some cited sources. I can't claim that my choice of four -- Pickard's announcement, UKC response, Guardian article, BBC article -- was random: I was unable/unwilling to look at sources behind paywalls, and I chose sources that were cited rather frequently and thus were likely to be important to the article. But within those constraints, there was no cherry-picking; and I didn't look at the use of any source but remain silent about my finding.

Three/four days ago, I was generally impressed, but disturbed by what seemed to be a tendency to sloppiness in paraphrasing the sources that I did look at. Now I'm happy to see that all the problems I specifically pointed to have been fixed, but I feel obliged to look at the use of a few more sources.

1. "Clark, Morris & Lomax 2018": OK

2. "Government's £9.3m pro-EU leaflet under fire from Brexit campaigners" (Yorkshire Post): OK

3. Andrew Glencross, "Fact Check special: Government leaflet that makes case for Britain staying in the EU" (The Conversation)

This is used in two places. One use isn't at all problematic. As for the other, the article now tells us that "Andrew Glencross of the University of Stirling said that there were 'good reasons' to accept their logic".

The issue here is the antecedent of "their". The "logic" that Glencross describes is, as I understand it, that:

1. "EU withdrawal would create uncertainty over continued UK access to the single market"
2. "uncertainty over continued UK access to the single market" would "[put] off foreign investment and [weaken] sterling"
3. A weakening of sterling "would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards"

Apologies for any inaccuracy in that, but I'm pretty sure that Glencross does describe a causal chain. This is missing in the article, which lists a number of claims with which Glencross agrees and which he believes are causally related, but (to me) doesn't show any particular "logic". So I'm not so happy with this particular paraphrase. OTOH (i) it's not bad (it doesn't seem to say anything that he's unlikely to believe), and (ii) the others I looked at are good. (Tl;dr: It's OK.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ratings

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I cannot claim to have examined all, or even most, of the cited sources. Paraphrasing/use of the first group of sources I looked at was not satisfactory, but my earlier, critical comments on this has led to a thoroughgoing improvement. As for that of a second group of sources, it's not flawless but it's good enough. (Specification of sources, complete with archived versions wherever suitable, is first-rate.)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It's broad enough in its coverage of what the leaflet covered and was discussed as covering. And, rightly, it also looks briefly at what the leaflet was criticized for not covering.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

-- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2023