Talk:Racism in the British Conservative Party/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. I am MJL and will be your reviewer for today (permalink). GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It's a bit of a contentious topic, but I hope this process can be conducted smoothly here.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The Guild of Copy editors are always good folks.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There are a few points here. (1) The hatnote at top currently violates WP:RELATED, and {{See also}} shouldn't be used like that. (2) The lead is short and doesn't summarize the main points of the article. (3) This article pretty much overuses {{Main}} (with its use in the section titled "May and Rudd: "Hostile environment" and Windrush" being particularly unwise)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   You have a bunch of reference errors.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Some of those errors are pretty critical, too.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It only discusses the Conservative Party's history with racism through various, but then why not mention their policies. Even if it is a short statement saying their policies have never been explicitly racist, that'd be one thing at least. A political party is much more than the individual leaders.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Some

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This section probably just plainly needs to be cut or heavily re-worked. Apartheid was racist. The people who supported Apartheid were racist. This section does not effectively say Thatcher supported Apartheid (in fact, it says the opposite).

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I have literally no clue how this is so stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There is a single image of Enoch Powell.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All taken together, this clearly is far from passing. It's certainly worth the effort to do work on, but you have more than this nomination pending (Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party). Xi Jinping, which you previously nominated, is also up for review right now as well. Best of luck!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)