Talk:Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: PinkPanda272 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I have read through the page and it looks well written and does not contain any obvious problems. I will start reviewing today, and hope to have it completed in the next 6-7 days. Please bear in mind that it may take a bit longer, as this is my first review. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Hi, here is my review: Member of Parliament section.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No issues here, spelling and grammar are good throughout, and the relevant MOS sections are followed well. I have fixed a few small punctuation errors myself.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Most sources are reliable and well referenced, the only exception being this one from Lincolnshire Pride Magazine, the author's opinions seem to be fairly biased. The page scores 10.7% on the copyvio detector, nothing notable as the only matches are direct quotes.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I can't see any major content ommisions, summary style used well throughout (bar small problem descibed below).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * UKIP seems to have far more coverage in the lead section than the Conservatives, even though they have never won the seat. I understand the reasoning (referendum result, high vote shares etc), but I would suggest slimming it down to provide a more balanced view, as the details are already given in a later section. Everything else is portrayed neutrally and without bias.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article is stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are freely licensed and well captioned. A picture of Skegness (if available) would be good as a counterpoint to the one of Boston, and an image of either/both of Matt Warman's predecessors would be good in the
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written article, references and content are all good. Just a few issues to fix, so I am putting it on hold for a week. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues to fix:
 * Change or remove Lincolnshire Pride reference
 * Condense UKIP coverage in main section
 * I've done some condensing. Not sure if it's enough though.
 * Looks good, I have condensed slightly more ✅
 * Add Skegness image if possible
 * Added. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice image, I have edited the caption as there is no context for the Clock Tower ✅
 * Repeat the explanatory note for Buckingham in the lead section
 * I removed the part about Buckingham as part of condensing UKIP coverage Username6892 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe change 'promoted' for 'moved' in relation to Mark Simmonds' shadow ministerial positions, as he was still a Minister of State when he moved to the Health brief
 * Change '...anti-European Union UK Independence Party' to '...Eurosceptic UK Independence Party', makes more sense as that is where the link points to
 * Rephrase "...since legally all unprotected constituencies must have electorate size within 5% of the median electorate for unprotected British constituencies" doesn't read very well.
 * "..must be within 5% of the median electorate size.." Does that read better?
 * Good start, I have condensed it slightly more ✅
 * The sentence about house prices and wages in the Constituency Profile section is quite long and cumbersome, could do with spitting.
 * The graph at the top of the election section states that minor parties that never received more than 5% of the vote are omitted. The Green Party is included, even though they have never met this threshold?
 * I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username6892 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call, looks better now
 * I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd normally allow parties who run 2 elections in a row to be added if they get 2% in at least one, but the Greens didn't in this constituency. Username6892 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call, looks better now
 * I think all of the comments have been addressed now. Thank you for the review! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting and well-written article, all errors have been promptly fixed, well done. I am now more than happy to promote this as a Good Article. I would also suggest nominating it for DYK to give the article more prominence, there are plenty of interesting facts to use. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)