Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

Good article nomination (1)
There are significant coverage gaps here. The demographics of the seat need to be discussed - Age distribution, income distribution, ethnic and religious distribution. And need to discuss how this affects the psephology. eg, older people will put focus on aged care, certain ethnic or religious groups may tend to vote based on foreign policy, how income distribution affects thether they vote Tory or Labor. Also, need to discuss what local aspects of the seat make it different to others - local issues like specialisede local industries, wildlife and what have you. Also need more about the evolving psehology of the seat. Was it in the past a conservative area that evolved into a Labor area? If so, why did this happen, etc. There is a long list of members, so this electorate has a long history, and it give you a lot more to talk about - more unusual elections, histroical developments of the electorate and also, I think you need to discuss if any frontbenchers or prominent parliament members held this seat. eg, see Division of Macarthur, although not very good at all, for a start.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination (2)
I agree with the concerns of the previous reviewer. It seems that much more could be covered here. What is distinctive about this area's politics over time? There just isn't much in the article on that yet. There is a little bit, but not much. This area has 500 years worth of political history. Certainly there is something more to say?

Smaller issues:
 * Peterborough is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally styled The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. - Just want to make sure the "formally styled" is correct. It reads oddly.
 * Franchise section could do with more dates (unreformed, Interregnum).
 * There needs to be a color key at the beginning of the table.

If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Awadewit | talk  13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel your decision is unnecessarily harsh here. This is not FAC; the article addresses the the main points in context, gives detail where known/ noteworthy but remains focussed; and it is broad in coverage, particularly in comparision to other parliamentary constituency articles (at 42kB length). The primary information, the complete list of members, is a resource which is not compiled anywhere else. The prose is clear, the grammar is correct and it complies with the manual of style guidelines. It is factually accurate, verifiable and properly referenced. In my opinion therefore, it is well written and meets the criteria set-out for a good article. In terms of your specific (smaller) objections:&mdash;
 * See British House of Commons article, for the formal style.
 * The Franchise section discusses the key dates 1800 and 1835 (electorate), 1872 (secret ballot), 1832 (Reform Act), 1868 (enfranchising the skilled working class) and 1919 (universal manhood suffrage). The period of the interregnum is covered in the following table, ie. the period between the Long Parliament and its brief restoration.
 * A colour key is redundant, as the table gives the party affiliation (since this existed) in longhand.
 * Can you please review your decision in light of this, or otherwise set-out your objections in terms of the relevant criteria. Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * [copied from Awadewit's talkpage:
 * To be clear, I was not using the FAC criteria while reviewing this article and I was also agreeing with the previous reviewer. It is precisely the issue of broad coverage that is at issue. There are only a few isolated examples of the borough's political history given, not a broad overview. Those are actually two different things and GA demands the overview.
 * I would suggest including dates for the interregnum and other pre-1800 events that are currently just linked for readers who don't know when they happened.
 * I was initially confused by the colors. I had to scroll down through the table and start checking to see if the colors matched with the parties. It is always a good idea to be as explicit about these things as possible - to be as helpful to readers as we can.


 * You are free to appeal the decision at WP:GAR. Awadewit | talk  16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment
Taken to WP:GAR for a reassessment of the above decision. Chrisieboy 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reassessed and listed. Geometry guy 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

List of MPs
IMO, this should really be formatted like other multi-MP constituencies, with MPs who served simultaneously on the same level as one another. Choess (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, hence why I made the changes I did (now revoked). The list is horribly formatted; entries do not link to their relative articles, it violated the MoS in several ways and some of the bits are frankly ridiculous. 'Helen Rosemary Brinton (later Mrs Clark)'; does the fact that she got married really need to be included? PhD's and other qualifications have also been put in the entries; they aren't acceptable in the introduction to articles on those people nevermind their entries in a list. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the "later Mrs Clark" is that her surname has changed, so she's normally known as Helen Clark (e.g., in the lede). We do the same sort of thing for MPs who adopted new surnames by deed poll during their term. I agree that the postnominals aren't necessary for a list like this. Choess (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ironholds, your edit summaries, which include "some work, god this page is appalling" and "cleaned up; no way in hell this should have been a GA" are not really called for. Helen Clark's marriage is mentioned as she was first elected as Brinton and the article was promoted by consensus, having been assessed by experienced reviewers. The change proposed by Choess does not correspond to your edits in any case. By all means let's work collaboratively at improving the site, but tone down your language please. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is a bit strong, indeed. Actually Choess's edits are (generally) in line with my thinking; I didn't have time for much of the stuff I wanted to do. GAs are normally assessed by single reviewers; if you are referring to the multiple nominations then I'd point out that two of the three reviewers failed it; not really consensus. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to the reviewers at reassessment. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I'd disagree with consensus here; while WP:CREDENTIAL doesn't (as far as I know) apply to list entries it should. Ironholds (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070128155507/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/pbc/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Cambridgeshire_Peterborough.doc to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Cambridgeshire_Peterborough.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927113505/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/ACR_Cambs_Peterborough.doc to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/ACR_Cambs_Peterborough.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013052335/http://www.peterborough.gov.uk:80/page-5807 to http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-5807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716123043/http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1020903 to http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1020903
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929165210/http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1021345 to http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1021345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Article likely to become relevant to a current event
This article is potentially likely to become relevant to a current event in the near future, and may see a large volume of traffic. See the Article for the current MP Fiona Onasanya for reason why. Does this article need any improvement or cleanup ahead of it becoming potentially important and popular? Espatie (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We must adhere to WP:Crystal I think. If what could happen, happens, then we must ensure that this article does not get messed up by IPs and candidates without sources and that sort of thing. For now we can only deal with any copyediting or general maintenance that seems relevant. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we should not jump the gun and start adding things about the putative by-election, but I do wonder if there is any cleanup and improvement that could be prioritised ahead of it becoming popular. I'm working backwards through the material by date to ensure accuracy. Sadly this is a very long article (a consequence of a Constituency of this name having been in existence since 1542), and clarity here is a victim of the standard format in some ways. Espatie (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria
This older GA promotion is listed a the new GA Sweeps initiative. This article has accreted significant amounts of uncited material that is of a non-obvious nature, which should be sourced per the modern GA criteria. Additionally, some material is outdated as the demographics information is dependent upon the 2001 census, when there have been two UK censuses since then. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)