Talk:Ken Livingstone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** Kenneth Robert "Ken" Livingstone (born 17 June 1945) is a British Labour Party politician who has twice held the leading political role in London local government, first as the Leader of the Greater London Council (GLC) from 1981 until the Council was abolished in 1986, and then as the first elected Mayor of London from the creation of the office in 2000 until 2008.
 * 9) *** Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
 * 10) *** I think the first sentence is a bit long. I recommend "Kenneth Robert "Ken" Livingstone (born 17 June 1945) is a British Labour Party politician who has twice held the leading political role in London local government" as the first sentence, followed by "He served as the Leader of the Greater London Council (GLC) from 1981 until the Council was abolished in 1986, and then as the first elected Mayor of London from the creation of the office in 2000 until 2008.".
 * 11) ****Agreed; I have made the change. I think that it reads much better now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) ***** Thanks --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 14) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 16) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 17) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 18) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 19) ** Check for Biographies: ✅
 * 20) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 21) Check for Biographies of living persons:  ✅
 * 22) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 23) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 24) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 25) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 26) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 27) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

Check for WP:BLP:


 * 1) Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE):
 * 2) * Check for Tone:
 * 3) * Check for Balance (WP:COAT):
 * 4) Check for Reliable sources:
 * 5) * Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES):
 * 6) * Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE):
 * 7) * Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP):
 * 8) * Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY):
 * 9) * Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS):
 * 10) * Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL):
 * 11) Check for Presumption in favor of privacy:
 * 12) * Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM):
 * 13) * Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE):
 * 14) * Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB):
 * 15) * Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF):
 * 16) * Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E):
 * 17) * Check for Persons accused of crime' (WP:BLPCRIME):
 * 18) * Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: Yes
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (PD)

✅

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


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

Midnightblueowl, I'm very happy and inspired to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article :
 * I think the first sentence of the lead can be improved.
 * 1a issue: "the reduction of the age of consent for male same-sex activity from 21 to 16, in line with the different-sex age of consent consent.[52]"
 * 1a issue: "In 1979, internal crisis rocked Labour as activists organised as the Campaign for Labour Democracy struggled with the Parliamentary Labour Party for a greater say in party management.[54] Livingstone joined the activists' side, on 15 July 1978 helping unify small hard left groups as the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory (SCLV)" It can be more clear, I think. Should it be "activists' side" or simply "activists"? The sentence involving "as activists organised as" can be more clear. Also, the timeline for this part starts from 1979, goes to 1978 and again comes to 1979, rendering this part a bit difficult to follow.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right Seabuckthorn, I've made the necessary corrections. Thank you so much for undertaking this GAR - it is much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you Seabuckthorn; much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)