Talk:English Defence League/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

doing Should have comments up by the end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hope you find the article to be of some interest to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay—I didn't really realize how lengthy an article this was when I picked it to review :) Overall, I think this article is in pretty good shape. Comments broken out into general themes are as follows:
 * General and prose :


 * High-level: this article is 11,500 words and 73 KB readable prose size. That's by no means "too long", but I think there's an argument to be made to trimming and summarizing—especially since you have historical longform pieces rather than contemporary news articles to use, and especially since the article is fragmented into sub articles at present.
 * Especially given the length, I'm not sure why there's a separate 4,800-word article of the organization's ideology but there's still a roughly 3,800-word section in this one. The organization section is 67% of the spun-off article, and the membership 62%. The relatively small differences between these numbers suggests that either the spin-off articles are going into excessive detail, the summaries in the main article are going into excessive detail, or the content should just be cut down in whatever form to fit in the main article.
 * I've been trying to get the overall length of the article down by splitting off many of the sections into separate articles. Obviously, I've been able to cut down some sections a lot more than others as part of this process. Are there any paragraphs/sections that really strike you as being ripe for pruning? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a general look at condensing thoughts and pruning extra words wherever possible. To take an example from the ideology section:

Pilkington characterised the EDL as an "anti-Islamist movement",[3] although noted that "there is slippage at movement level, and among individual supporters, into a broader anti-Islam or anti-Muslim position".[126] Officially, the EDL stated it only opposed certain types of Islam and certain types of Muslim,[127] being against the "Islamic extremist" but not the "ordinary Muslim",[128] a distinction also drawn by many of its activists.[129] However, the EDL's rhetoric regularly failed to make this distinction.[130] On its website, the two are often conflated: a 2011 article stated that "The sheer number of cases of Islamic extremism should suggest... that the problem should not be seen as being with a sub-sect of Islam that no one can really define... but as a problem with Islam itself."[131] It is likely that many who encountered the EDL's rhetoric were not able to appreciate a distinction between different interpretations of Islam,[127] and research among the group's grassroots found that many did not do so.[132]
 * We could shorten this, for example, to something like:

Pilkington characterised the EDL as an "anti-Islamist movement",[3] but considered there to be crossover with broader anti-Islam or anti-Muslim positions.[126] The EDL stated it only opposed the "Islamic extremist" but not the "ordinary Muslim",[128] a distinction also drawn by many of its activists.[129] However, the EDL's rhetoric regularly failed to make this distinction.[130] It is likely that many who encountered the EDL's rhetoric were not able to appreciate a distinction between different interpretations of Islam,[127] and research among the group's grassroots found that many did not do so.[132]
 * There's some redundancies removed (if we're saying the EDL says something, you can safely assume it's an organization position) as well as summarizing positions rather than wholesale quoting. The subsection on the dithering about whether or not they're islamophobic likewise feels like it could be a paragraph or less—these people say they meet the definition X, the EDL disagrees.
 * I've gone through and carried out some pruning to the "Ideology" section. If you feel that it could be cut back even further, let me know and I'll have another go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've done some more trimming today. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly better, but there's still a huge amount of duplicated content here versus the subpages. I would suggest in particular a good place to condense is anywhere you currently have level-four headings—so stuff like the subsections under "Anti-Islamism and Islamophobia". If we've got a sub-page, then you should be much more aggressive in applying summary style to the contents here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have another go at pruning back "Anti-Islamism and Islamophobia". Hopefully it can be further condensed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Im a bit confused about the tense of some sections. The article makes it clear that the EDL is a shadow of its former self, but there's very little dated past 2015 and the tense used in some sections makes it sound like the EDL is defunct entirely.
 * I've struggled with this issue. It's true that the EDL are now much diminished and as a result fewer and fewer academics have researched them, and this means that the article is inevitably going to focus on their heyday. Would you recommend making much heavier use of the present tense or rather ensure virtually everything is past tense? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend leaving it present then. Until you get enough sources talking about it in the past tense I think that's more appropriate when referring to the extant and non-historical elements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now been through the article and switched many instances of past tense to present tense. In some cases I've left it as past, if the sentence is discussing (for instance) the revelations of a particular researcher. If you spot any cases which I've missed and where you think I should also change it to present tense, do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right, Islamophobic organisation in the United Kingdom. A social movement and pressure group that employs street demonstrations as its main tactic, the EDL presents itself as a single-issue movement opposed to Islamism and Islamic extremism, although its rhetoric and actions target Islam and Muslims more widely.—to me the second sentence has a lot of redundancies with the first mentioning it as an islamophobic org. I think it would be better to just say it's a far-right org in the UK in the first sentence and keep the expounding on their goals in the second sentence.
 * Initially, I worded the opening sentence so that it described it as a "far-right, counter-jihad organisation". Other editors then changed it, arguing that "Islamophobic" would be more familiar to most readers than "counter-jihadi". However, I think that linking to Counter-jihad is more precise than simply "Islamophobic" and better mirrors the opening sentences on articles like the GA-rated National Front (UK). Do you think that restoring "counter-jihad" over "Islamophobic" here would also deal with the issues of possible repetition that you raise? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, counter-Jihad is more precise, but doesn't really read much better than islamophobic to a casual reader, I imagine. I think you're better off leaving it out of that sentence and letting the much clearer second sentence clarify the nature of their activism. If I had to pick, though, I'd use counter-jihad given that it's a more precise term and one the EDL itself agrees with in their presentation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "Islamophobic" with "counter-jihad" in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is presently chaired by Tim Ablitt. out of the lead, I'm not sure why this statement is here. It doesn't logically follow off the previous sentence, and gives no indication Ablitt is particularly notable (he's not introduced nor blue linked, after all.)
 * I decided to include this to mirror the structure of the lede paragraphs in various other UK political articles, which specify who the current leader is (Liberal Democrats (UK), National Front (UK) etc). I generally thought it a good idea to specify who the present leader of the organisation was, regardless or whether they were independently notable or not. However, if you really think the lede paragraph is better off without this, then I have no strong objections to its removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the organization leader isn't really notable, I don't see the benefit. Ablitt isn't the important thing, the article subject is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I'll remove this sentence altogether from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Officially, it presents itself as being opposed to Islamism, Islamic extremism, and jihadism, although its rhetoric repeatedly conflates these with Islam and Muslims more broadly. This is redundant with the first paragraph.
 * Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * By early 2013, commentators believed—which commentators?
 * The source used here (Alessio and Merdeith 2014) simply says "In early 2013, a number of commentators suggested that the movement appeared to be on the decline". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's places throughout where you just introduce a name without any explanation, especially if they're blue-linked—Roger Eatwell, for example. I'd recommend adding a quick explanation of who they are in these cases; you don't want readers to have to link away to get the basic gist, so just saying "academic Roger Eatwell" would help (as you have clarified some people like "Salafi Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary", etc.)
 * I've clarified that Eatwell is a political scientist (probably a bit more precise than just "academic") and I'll keep my eyes peeled for other examples of names needing explanations in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * when Ray emigrated.—where'd he go? You mention Malta later but I think it's better to just put that detail here rather than at the end of the paragraph.
 * My concern here would be providing more information in the text than the cited sources offer. For instance, Copsey (2013, p. 13) is cited at the end of the sentence stating that Ray emigrated, but the source does not stipulate where Ray actually went at that point. Other sources later relate that he subsequently was based in Malta, but I am unsure if he moved directly from the UK to Malta or whether there were other countries in which he lived in between the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While it's understandable why some terms are put in quotes to avoid the appearance of editorializing, when those terms are specifically cited to commentators I don't think you really need them; you're still meeting WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. For example, It faced opposition from anti-fascist groups and media commentators, who described it as a "racist", "far right", and "extreme right" outfit—we understand the descriptions of them as racist and far right comes from the anti-fascist groups and media (I'd also switch the order so it's more clear that the media commentators are not anti-fascist.)
 * Another element of "newsy" writing that can be avoided throughout: awkward passive-voice constructions. Instead of saying The EDL was further damaged after it was revealed that it had links to Anders Breivik,, say The revelation of links to Norwegian far-right activist further damaged the EDL. or similar.
 * I've changed the examples that you have highlighted. I'll read through the article and see if there are other examples where I can make a change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Robinson's imprisonment coincided with Carroll's bail conditions,—unless I'm missing something, the text doesn't explain Carroll went to jail previously, so this comes out of nowhere.
 * You're right, but I'm not quite sure how to fix this one. The source itself (Pilkington p. 45) says "while Tommy Robinson was in prison and Kevin Carroll on bail conditions that did not allow him contact with other EDL members". It doesn't go into any further detail on that particular page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sold on the quoteboxes in the ideology section; these seem to be used to break up the text, which I appreciate, but it also introduces potential issues of WP:UNDUE weight (I don't know who 'far right historian Paul Jackson' is, and whether he's really such a big deal that he should be quoted in full. The quotes also feel like they run up against summary style issues; we should be using less copyright content than more where possible.
 * To be honest I'm a fan of quoteboxes and I'm loath to lose these examples. I've used them in other British politics articles like Referendum Party and National Front (UK) which have reached FA or GA quality so I do think they are permissible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's way more in this article than either of those, so I don't really think it's a good comparison. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. There are a lot of boxes here. I've taken two of them out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken a couple more out as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * References :
 * Sources used appear reliable and appropriate.
 * Do you have copies of the materials you can send me temporarily for verification purposes? Otherwise I'll see what I can pull from my public library access to spot-check sources.
 * The cited articles by Goodwin, Copsey, and Garland and Treadwell are all available freely online so you could use those to make things easier, rather than having to go the library. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do a spot-check this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked statements attributed to said sources and didn't find issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You've got a dead link for ; there's no archived link unfortunately. Is it possible to replace this source?
 * I've found a different (and functioning) link to the published report. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Media :
 * Images licensed freely, have appropriate description and source text/
 * As a matter of editorial, File:Tommy Robinson PEGIDA.png isn't as good a photo as the overall quality of the rest of the images and is redundant with another photo of Robinson earlier, so I'd cut it.
 * I've replaced it with File:Tommy Robinson (2).jpg, which is of a much higher quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted some responses and struck some addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, did you have any further thoughts about the article? Any areas where you think I could have another go at cutting it down or otherwise improving it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think additional summarizing could take place. I will take a stab tonight at demonstrating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken a cutting pass to the ideology section; I was a bit conservative in that I wanted to avoid unduly synthesizing things without proper familiarity with the sources, but I think the basic structure is there—that you describe its overall classification, how it is different from classic far-right organizations (welcoming LGBT and non-muslim minorities), and then go into a (little) more detail in the main page about the islamaphobia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. There are a few bits that have been removed but which I think should be restored, however. Given that the 'anti-Islam' message is so central to the EDL, I think it important that we at least cover all areas of this issue, if briefly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, did you have any further thoughts on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for a second opinion. At this point I still believe the article fails 3b of the criteria by failing to use summary style for sections that have already been spun out, but I'm willing to be convinced by another reviewer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, is there is a request here for comments from another editor? I can read the article soon and provide some comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the discussion above. The disagreement seems to be over whether the article is overly-detailed or not (according to the good article criterion, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I think there would be some cases in which the article contains too much detail.


 * The article states, "Protesters held signs stating "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra", "Anglian Soldiers: Cowards, Killers, Extremists", and "British Government Terrorist Government". I don't think it is necessary to give specific examples of messages on signs. Another example: "On the EDL's social media, many supporters incite violence against Muslims: "we need to kill", "time to get violent", "Kill any muslim u see [sic]", "Kill the curry munching bastards", and "Petrol bomb your nearest mosque". I appreciate why these examples were given; I still think they are arguably unnecessary. Same remarks apply to the immediately following sentence ("Chants during rallies included "Die, Muslim, die",[38] and "Give me a gun and I'll shoot the Muzzie scum").


 * The article notes at least twice that the EDL established an LGBT division ("In March 2010 it launched the first of its specialist divisions, the LGBT Division, after realising that gay people had attended its events but not under a unified banner" followed later in the article by "The EDL condemns homophobia and established an LGBT division in March 2010"). There are at least two widely separated references to the EDL establishing a Jewish division. I note the article states in "Leadership and branches" that "The latter included a women's division, Jewish division, Sikh division, Hindu division, and LGBT division", so that's more like three references. Definitely some room for cutting back on repetition here.


 * The article includes the following: "Examples of the first category included "Muslim bombers off our streets", "No surrender to the Taliban", "Protect women, no to sharia", "If you wear a burqa you're a cunt", "You can stick your fucking Islam up your arse", "You can shove your fucking Allah up your arse", "Allah is a paedo", and "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?". It would suffice if the article noted that the EDL used offensive and obscene chants without giving a whole list of them.


 * The article states, " recurring joke among the EDL membership was that the group's female supporters were mostly involved so that they could find men to engage in sexual and romantic relationships with". That seems gratuitous and could be removed per WP:PROPORTION.


 * The article contains two different references to the opposition of EDL members to people they consider "stupid lefties" (" Its online material nevertheless often condemns left-wingers,[105] and members regularly complain about "stupid lefties"" and "Among EDL members, there is much talk of "stupid lefties" who were believed to hate the white working class"). Again seems like unnecessary repetition.


 * There are actually relatively few cases like this where there is clearly too much detail; the problem is not something that cannot be remedied. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Freeknowledgecreator. I'll crack on with this soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article and removed all of the bits you highlighted. In a few instances I also trimmed some of the sentences around those which you highlighted. Thanks for taking the time to look at this and let me know if you have any further comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would pass the article if it were my decision. However, obviously it isn't my decision. That's up to the main reviewer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't find the length a problem, I will defer and pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)