Talk:Centre Democrats (Netherlands)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some initial questions
These are somewhat nitpicky but well-meaning comments, so that readers can understand the party better.


 * In the lead, I removed the sentence "despite claiming that it stood in the centre of the political landscape" as it's well possible for a centrist party to be nationalist. If a scholar has disputed their centrist self-label, it should say so, and say which scholar. I placed a "who" tag lower down in the article, around the claim "observers considered".
 * What is a low-key member? Who were they? Why did they break?
 * "steering a more moderate course" -- more moderate than what?
 * Did they contest any local elections in its early years?
 * Self-contradiction: "Despite widespread media coverage generated by Janmaat's reputation" and "During its early years, the Centre Democrats received extensive media attention on two occasions"
 * Why did the two parties meet on 29 March 1986?
 * Why did suddenly Jaanmat want to be reinstated, why was he out of the teacher job in the first place?
 * "improving both its image and its grassroots support" -- how, what strategy?
 * "removed from the Dutch leadership" -- better word than leadership
 * Prosecution of party members; approximately how many, how did it go?
 * Was the cordon sanitaire a formal agreement, can the time be given more precisely than "soon"?
 * joined other parties, left the party -- is this a reason for seats becoming vacant? It certainly isn't in my country.
 * The paragraph containing the 1994 elections is confusing. Did they fail mainly because of a weak organization, or because of outside pressure?
 * Suddenly it is said that the party was "right-wing populist", without the issue having been discussed before. Are we just to infer that from the few earlier sentences about the party's actual policies?
 * How did they try to "broaden their appeal"? What issues did they try to raise? The social conservatism mentioned in the infobox is discussed very little; in three sentences.
 * "the Dutch courts" -- which courts, did he take it to a Supreme Court?
 * "The alliance soon fell apart" -- was it really an alliance?
 * What legislation against the far right?
 * Where did they assert "the indissoluble unity ..."? In the party platform, in a parliamentary speech etc? Same issue with "it sought reunification with ..."

I would also have a native-speaking English copyeditor go through the article.
 * Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to questions;


 * Your claim that "it's well possible for a centrist party to be nationalist" directly conflict with mainstream political science (it is seen as self-contradictory). All we can do is to cite the opinions of political science and the party itself.
 * It is a non-notable member. Since the literature doesn't mention it, it is likely unimportant and/or unclear.
 * More moderate than what it was formerly. (Isn't this obvious?) Read the full paragraph.
 * Nothing of importance at least.
 * It is hardly a "self-contradiction" that the party generally received media attention due to Janmaat, and that it gained specific attention due to the two incidents.
 * To discuss a merger, reportedly.
 * Because he did not get re-elected to parliament. Because he had become an MP.
 * What is your question here really? The strategy was what you cited...
 * Is "Dutch leading political positions" OK?
 * You will find information on the important ones further down the article.
 * It was formal enough for the party to become systematically excluded from parliament and government. It happened following the incidents, as stated in the article.
 * Well, it obviously is in the Netherlands.
 * As said in the article; largely due to external media pressure.
 * I decided to scrap the sentence.
 * They tried to downplay the foreigner issue, as it is implied in the article.
 * Is this really necessary information? (The scholars obviously didn't think so.)
 * No, it was more just a cooperation, as I originally had written. A later editor had changed this to "alliance".
 * See my edit in the article.
 * See my edits in the article.


 * A native-speaking English copyeditor has recently gone through the article per request. I had this done right before I nominated it for GA. (Are you sure you are competent to judge this given that you yourself are a Norwegian, with a self-declared "en-3" level of knowledge of the English language?) – Bellatores (t.) 16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the second opinion requested for the entire article, or just the note about the copyedit? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was mainly what I questioned, but User:Geschichte must consider how to pursue possible other issues. – Bellatores (t.) 12:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)